I think the second rule is pretty focused on optimized play. My groups have never had the problem of wizards and sorcerers in half plate because it just doesn't fit in with the fantasy my players have. They're not super into optimized play
I agree. This set of houserules will work best if you're playing online or at public tables with people who come in with Adventurer's League-style chararacters.
Meanwhile I had a warforged wizard with 22 ac in DoA who never got any magic items because she was just the tankiest player there and it took Zariel and her massive statblock to even down/damage them. So I can see it being a real concern.
Same here. I’ve almost exclusively played wizards and sorcerers since I started playing 5e in 2016 and I’ve never been tempted to build my wizard this way. These rules are clearly for optimized tables
@@petrus9067 original it replaced the numbers on SS and GWM. I have changed my mind since leaving this comment though and this 'fix' doesn't work sadly. I am instead working on a full weapons, fighting style and feat overhaul to remove this mechanic entirely and instead raise the average power level of martials.
@@NageIfar sounds more fun :) i saw an interesting livestream by Dungeon Dudes reviewing homebrew and one of the entries was basically a feat that let you with swords assume different stances each turn that change your playstyle, sounded rrally interesting to me maybe you can use as inspiratjon
I think most of these house rules are fixing issues that don’t exist in most games. Perhaps they help in games where the whole table is full of optimizers, but in your standard game with casual players they might actually hurt gameplay. I think the optimization community sometimes loses track of what a standard game table is like.
Yeah in my tables we tend to not have hyper-optimized builds, and if they are, it is usually to make some sort of silly concept work, not just playing the best d&d character possible in every way. There's usually 1-2 people with Shield, maybe half the party in armor, and plenty of folks just playing fun casual stuff like monks and barbarians. As long as each player is respectful and doesn't try to outshine the others, I don't think any of these are necesarry at 99% of tables. But if you happen to be Treantmonk running games for patrons of your optimization UA-cam channel, then I can totally understand why implementing some of these rules would make from much more interesting and fun parties.
I see where you are coming from, but I very much disagree. The main thing all three of these changes do is reduce the power difference between casters and martials, and that power difference is very real in both optimized and unoptimized games, and becomes more and more pronounced the higher you get in level. The 2nd rule is the only one that only really effects optimizers, and it does so in such a way that you can just tell the more casual players at a table they don't need to even bother reading it if they don't want to because it will only effect them if they want to multiclass or pick up an armor feat on a spell caster, both of which are very atypical for a casual player to want to do. It also only ever has to be thought about by anyone during level ups, so its okay if no one except the DM remembers this rule even exists 99% of the time. If you have a full table of casual players, you could easily just not include the 2nd rule as they will effectively be following it even without knowing it exists. Where these rules really shine is in a table where you have some players who are optimizers, and some who are casuals, as alongside reducing the gap between casters and maritals, it also reduces it between optimizers and non optimizers. For casters in the group now the casuals have a similar AC as the optimizers, and the martial casuals now deal similar damage to the optimized ones.
My experience is that unless you mostly have new players you usually get one optimizer. And that's worse than an entire table of them. Out table recently lost it's one optimizer but I have a fairly good idea of which one of the new players will eventually start optimizing.
I find your list kinda perplexing, but then again I don't play at a table full of optimizers. If anything, I need to house-rule stuff to make them more powerful because they frequently do things that are so sub-optimal that it risks TPKs on encounters which by rights should be trivial. Super interesting to learn about how you do things at your table, as always :)
As a new player: the Shield spell is just COOL. (Independent of its power.) Reactions in general are cool, and Shield is the coolest reaction. The fantasy of throwing up a magical shield to barely stop an incoming flurry of attacks is just awesome fantasy. So I know I would be sad to lose it. I also love the fantasy of spell-slinging frontline fighters in armor and shield. So my objections are actually thematic. :)
IMO, Shield has a power issue for its resource cost. I also love having it from a thematic standpoint. Make it +2 or +3 , scaling at +1 AC per higher level spell slot. Works best if your DM tells you the hit result, which is the case in my games, because the resource-vs-benefit decision outweighs the "I feel bad because I wasted resources" downer induced by the opposite. Your table, your preferences :)
I have to agree with some of the people here, while I can understand these rules being inacted in a power-playing table it hasn't been a problem at my table.
The one house rule I use for about 2 years is... Everyone starts with a feat at lvl 1. This make my players come up with a lot more fun and wacky builds, also makes some more viable like dual-wielding.
I also thought just to say: you can take on free feat(no v human but regular human can stuck 2 +2 instead of 4 +1) but only whacky feats. Not weapons feat,raicel or battle mage and other very meta feats. And if you like a feat and you think its to weak a. Dont be if its fun its fun but b. I will buff it for you
I do this as well and it works great, but with limitations. I automatically allow any “initiate” feat, or half feat (but they don’t get the ASI.) Any other feat is up to my deliberation, but I only try to veer away from the super meta picks (GWM, Sharpshooter, etc.) I love seeing the fun builds my players come up with without worrying about burning an ASI or feat they need to keep up
Personally, as a DM, I think it's important to do routine housekeeping by rotating out house rules. I keep a 2 page limit to my house rules. If I exceed that, then I cut the worst rules out beforehand
When rolling damage for a crit, we max the damage of the initial die and roll one on top of it. Ensures that a crit is always better than a regular hit.
The downside to this one (and I've been playing with this same rule) is that it makes characters who add lots of damage dice to a single hit much much stronger, so Rogues and Paladins.
Oh, I like this. I don't like seeing the disappointment on a player's face when they roll really low on a crit and end up doing less damage than a regular hit. I'll give this a try!
One thing I like about #1 & #2 is that it reinforces a bit of a social compact between players and DMs. Players get more squishy, but DM will choose monsters that will miss more by default, and we'll allow the wizard and sorcerers to avoid attacks through active decision making. It seems like a pledge from the DM: "If you don't try to break the game, I won't try to punish you for playing the game how it was intended." For example, if the DM bans Shield and shields and medium armor on Wizards, hopefully that DM won't have a bunch of monsters teleport back to the Wizard to attack that low AC. Folks might try to run past the Fighter, but this will give the Fighter a chance to stop those monsters. It's letting the players protect themselves through active and creative gameplay on the table, rather than passive feats. What I hope could happen on the flip side: if someone really wanted to be the Mountain Dwarf Wizard, they get attacked as much as the Paladin in Plate. There's a particular fantasy to some kind of arcane front-liner, but that should be paid for in terms of subjecting such a wizard to the hazards of the front line.
I appreciate that these rules broaden the possibility of optimisation. Any changes that open up more effective character builds and concepts is a positive imo.
I'm very fortunate, my players don't tend to have a desire to push the limits of optimization so much so that there's a need for these house rules. Though, if they start, I'll be sure to implement them! Thanks Chris!!
My favourite Houserule is for two weapon fighting. -only the second weapon needs to be Light. -roll both damage on a hit, keep highest. - if both rolls are the same, add them up. No more bonus action hogging,
Sooo, if you roll max on a short sword and 6 on a long sword you get 12 damage? I like the idea of trading a shield/grapple option/spellcasting for essentially a safety net of damage to bring your damage floor up, but I’m very unsure about that last part about adding the damage rolls if they’re the same, that seems antithetical to the rest of the rule. It turns 1-8 damage favoring high numbers into 2-12 damage
That's an interesting concept. I don't think I'd add the die together for anything, but if dual wielding just made your damage that much more consistent or plays well into the fantasy and the mechanics. I may talk to my about this one. Edit: This could also work if you applied it to the Monk's Martial Arts too but on all Monk Weapons using the Monk's Martial Arts Dice instead of having to Dual Wield. . .
I love these house rules. Anything to narrow the gap between martials and spell casters is a good thing in my book. The only thing I would change is on Rule 3. -5/+10 Is pretty punishing for low level characters. Intead I would use minus your proficiency bonus to hit, double your proficiency bonus for damage. This makes it more achievable at lower levels and even more rewarding at higher levels
I wonder if disadvantage on attack, automatic crit, could be useful alternatively. Not possible if disadvantaged already, or just add 2 damage per -1 hit the player decides.
1) This makes War Wizards even better, and I am here for it. 2) This makes Valor and Swords Bards even better, and I am here for it. 3) This makes Monks suck less, and... sure, why not.
I think this makes Sword Bards much worse, I think the class was really carried by multiclassing and without it you will still only have 16 AC as a d8 class.
@@epicguy9678 That's pretty early on. Technically you could have a swords bard with half plate, medium armor master feat, dual wielder feat and 16+ dex score for a total of 19 AC. (still not accounting for Defensive Flourishes).
I'd keep shield, though require the user to be armorless like the Mage Armor spell. A pure caster should have that "oh Crap" button from an AC perspective, considering it's a very limited resource.
Well, that means bladesingers are still going to be AC gods. At high levels with maxed out int and dex, with blade song and mage armor, they have 23 AC, which becomes 28 with shield. Compare that to a fighter or paladin with +3 full plate and a +3 shield at 26 AC.
@@cmckee42 Well, bladesingers will still have terrible hp and so need to have more AC than a fighter or paladin just to have a CHANCE of not just getting murdered because they stepped onto the front lines. Also, all of these AC buffs take resources that the bladesinger cannot use in every fight. The 26 AC fighter or paladin will ALWAYS have 26 AC in the fight. I don't think it hurts bladesingers to be good at the thing the archetype is built to be good at.
Tested these rules (with a few tweaks) for almost 300 sessions now. Tweaks definitely needed in a few places, but by and large these rules have been a huge game-changer for leveling the playing field at my tables. Thank you!
When I keep seeing problems that arise due to a “one level dip,” it seems like the real problem isn’t with the shield spell or casting in armor, but with the multiclassing system in general.
This is true, but I'd rather solve issues that arise from multiclassing than ban it entirely because multiclassing offers a lot of creative freedom and options.
@CarminSteele I agree on this also. People have made many videos about weapons and armor not being interesting in 5e but no one wants to bring back what made armor different in older editions other than higher ac and stealth disadvantage.
Yeah. Now that the various "Guide to Everything" books have provided a lot more hybrid classes and subclasses, there's less of a need to use multiclassing for theme/concept reasons. Multiclassing has become a powergaming tool, pure and simple.
@@daviddalrymple2284 Disagree there's a big difference between power gaming And optimization. Power gaming is playing a level 20 wizard For anyone who understands the game. Optimization is allowing a Malay fighting character to not feel terrible when he has a 20th level wizard in his party.
Rule #2 is interesting to me for a couple of reasons. a) It reminds me of the old (2e?) rule that arcane casters simply can't wear armor. I remember loving when that rule went away, but yeah, that made casters even more powerful than they already were. I like this houserule much better. Allows some armor, doesn't discriminate between arcane and divine casting, and gives a big equipment distinction between characters. b) Rule #2 almost *almost* gets rid of the need for Rule #1. Let's look at who still gets the Shield spell + armor if Rule #2 exists but Rule #1 doesn't. I'm listing them in order of increasing concern: 1. Battlesmith and Artilerist artificers. I'm completely fine with this. These are not overpowered casters. 2. Arcane Tricksters. Frankly, if they're taking Shield, they aren't taking Find Familiar, which I consider more appropriate for them. 3. Eldritch Knight. EK subclass is almost "fighter with Shield spell", and they'd be choosing this ability over Battlemaster or Rune Knight, which are both probably better. Yes, their AC becomes incredible, but since it already plays like a martial and not a caster (as it should), this isn't a problem. 4. Bards (using Magical Secrets). Valor bards can get a very high AC for a casting class with this, but they're using up a 10th level class feature to do it. That's a pretty high opportunity cost, so its probably fine. The other subclasses aren't quite as problematic: Lore can get Shield earlier; Swords can get AC almost as high, but a Swords player probably wants to get mixed up in melee; the other subclasses aren't an issue at all -- the opportunity cost is way too high for the benefit. 5. Bladesinger wizard. Now we're starting to get into some subclasses that are probably problematic. This guy can get a high AC on a casting class. On the other hand, the Bladesinger's whole schtick is that it is a wizard that can often have a good AC, so it may not be quite as big an issue? I don't know. 6. Hexblade warlock. Implementing Rule#2 without Rule#1 makes Hexblade more desirable, as if it really needed the bump. On the plus side, they'd have to use one of their precious pact slots to cast it, so Sorlocks couldn't use their 1st level slots on it. My verdict? I'd probably implement Rule #2 without #1, and just warn the table from the start that I may require the players to swap out Shield if it looks like it still warps the game. The Weave is fickle, you know. Oh, and I'm definitely implementing Rules #2 and #3. I really like those.
You can also just ban multi classing. Thats what I want to do but worried my players may be too against it. No class will be a dip class if you do this and character have more solidified identity without multi classing to me.
@@theeye8276 I'm not a fan of multiclassing either, but I'd also be a fool to not acknowledge that a huge amount of what depth there is in 5e comes in the form of multiclassing, and as such removing it entirely would probably be bad for the game. A houserule to limit the worst excesses of multiclassing is good for balance, while minimally reducing player options and creativity.
@@watcher314159 I can see that. Alot of the depth I feel comes from people putting too much of a emphasis on flavor. Like I know a player who wanted to take a three level swashbuckler rogue dip because he wanted to be a swashbuckler es character. In my mind this was completely unnecessary, he could of just flavored his fighter to be more swashbuckler like instead of taking 3 levels for purely flavor reasons.
@@theeye8276 That is a problem. But I specifically mean mechanical depth. One of my favorite exercises for getting comfortable with reflavouring everything and exploring the mechanical depth offered by multiclassing is doing Xless X builds. So for example a Monkless Monk might be a Barbarian/Paladin/Fighter or Hexsorcadin. Or a Rangerless Ranger might be a Fighter/Rogue/Druid. It's a great way to overcome a whole bunch of conceptual hurdles.
I feel like rogue's damage is getting way smaller after those changes. Lack of extra attack makes a larger difference, because it's one less potential +10. Also, rogues are desperate to hit with their limited number of attacks to deliver sneak attack, making -5 more painful.
Yeah, this becomes essentially free 5th level sneak attack (3d6 is 10.5 on average) to all martial classes. Would love to hear if Chris has had much experience with rogues using this rule and how they have handled this.
@@hawkname1234 Not really. Every other martial class (and some full spellcasters) gets extra attack at 5th level, which is better than advantage, and advantage is generally considered a +5 as a rule of thumb. I was factoring that in, but didn’t want to have a super long comment.
The plus 5 by rule of thumb is just a bad simplification. It all depends on what the AC of the creature is. I use to use the same thing but had to abandon it because it can be really misleading. That being said without the -5 rouges would be better at targeting higher AC and I think that fits the thematic decision
Three homebrew options that fit the simplicity spirit of 5, while reigning back in the dramatic effectiveness of the multiclass. Glad to see some martial class boosts as well and while I am currently running an adventure for an all martial cast (Ranger, Fighter, Monk, Rogue), giving them another tactical option when making their attack action. Thank you Chris for sharing your years worth of research with us!
This is really interesting! I like how the first two rules allow for straight class warlocks/bards that can ignore the moderately armored feat. Also the last rule doesn’t lock a martial character into Vuman/Custom lineage
I have a gigantic word document of house ruled class changes, subclass tweaks and new rules. I have implemented exactly 2 of them (Giving Monks a 13th level feature and adding spells to arcane archer) because they're such a PITA for people to remember
I did a whole video series on the "Treantmonk variant" which was a massive set of house rules. I then playtested them and abandoned them because keeping track of that many was simply not possible, and looking them up all the time was a pain.
So true. So many hours of writing new rules, and I use like, 3-5 per campaign. But, it's nice to have them to turn to in case a new group is down for any of them.
Hmm, it's interesting, I really don't see most of these as problems. Like, everything you mentioned as possible comes with it's own downsides. Shield is a resource and a reaction, level dips slow progression, feats aren't free, crossbows require more feats than bows to use well, two handed weapons cost you ac, etc. Like, maybe it's just the groups I'm playing in, but these definitely weren't houserules I would have thought of. Interesting though, and I do wonder what it would be like to play with them.
I have to agree, shield has never been an issue for me, even when I am playing a caster I can go whole sessions without using shield because I only have 4 first level spell slots and I use them for other things right? Or I want to use my reaction for something else
@@esgeir9499 Well this is exactly my thought, at low levels the spell slot is too valuable, and at higher levels the reaction is too valuable. Not that it's not still a good spell, but not ubiquitous in my campaigns at all.
@@tomgymer7719 not to mention that, outside of optimizing scenarios, where your wizard somehow is in plate armor AND has a magic shield so their normal AC is already 20+, the +5 AC isn't anywhere near as valuable. most wizards that i can think of won't typically get more than like a 16ac. so the +5 only brings them to a 21, which is high, but a martial with plate armor can have that permanently, without needing magic items.
The most popular "downside-less dip" is Artificer 1 Wizard X. Gets you light armor, medium armor, shields, all simple weapons, and Con/Int saving throws-plus a few fantastic spells and cantrips (like Guidance) not otherwise available to wizards. The cost of it is that you lose out on Signature Spells (if you go to 20), and your class features and spells are delayed by one level. However, your spell *slot* progression isn't delayed due to the Artificer's unique spellcasting progression, so you still have the same spell slots available as a straight-classed wizard.
They sound so wierd at first, but the more I think about them the more I like them. I don't think I'd use them as I really don't like nerfing and banning stuff, but I can definitely see how they would make the game more balanced with a party of optimizers. Definitely food for thought whenever I get to DM again
I can attest to the first part of this video. In my early days of homebrewing rules, I definitely got overzealous with them which led to a lot of bookkeeping and confusion for everyone at the table. Important lessons were learned in those early days.
This may be the cynic in me, but that makes my mind just leap to a bunch of Monks with a Wizard dip, combining Patient Defense with Shield to become untouchable. Honestly though, Monks kinda need the boost anyway, so that wouldn't even bother me.
Did 5e do away with ac bonus types? I haven't played dnd since 3.5 (switched to Pathfinder), but back then, shield wouldn't stack with a physical shield because they were both shield bonuses
@@stephenchurch1784 5E does not have armor types. That said, sources either give you an AC or a bonus to AC. For example, you can not wear a breast plate and still get AC from your scales. Plenty of things give an AC bonus and they can stack. Shield, defensive fighting style, etc.
This is fantastic i love all of these. I watch a bunch of DnD youtubers and i find Treatmonk to be a step above the others. His suggestions and points are so methodical and thought out, and his audio is always stress-free with no needless music or bombastic sound effects. Thanks mate
That last house rule is so huge. As a player and a DM who likes to make characters that fit a concept but often feels stifled by the options of Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter, it opens such a new range of characters that can hold their own.
My favourite house rules are simple things that are easy to remember, and reduce rule checking. Glancing blows stands out to me, where you deal/take half damage when you meet an AC/DC It reduces people checking if it hits or works, and reduces the disappointment of missing by 1
@@kegkog3 it makes everyone's attacks slightly weaker, yes. Applies to players and enemies though, so it's balanced and I personally have monsters with glancing blow AC ranges, making them easy to hit for half damage, and hard to hit for full. But that adds complication.
My homebrew/houserule: all martials without spellcasting are full battlemasters. Full stop. You'd be shocked how much it doesn't break the game and how exciting it makes martials. Depending on how strong the subclass is for Rangers I may give them a feat or a couple superiority die. Paladins don't need anything. haha Edit: Just to clarify, I mean that all base classes that don't get access to spellcasting get this. So Fighters, Barbarians, Rogues, and Monks all get maneuvers/superiority die in their base class. Paladins and Rangers do not. So as a commentor questioned, Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters get access as well. I'm sure there is more that needs to be clarified but this is a UA-cam comment and it's house rules so make your own! 😁
@@czcrossman Yeah I've heard that one before. That would've been so much more interesting, might've actually played one in that case! I don’t think it breaks Monks, Rouges, or Barbarians to hand it to them as well. They all struggle to keep up with spellcasters. This narrows that gap. Echo Knights and Rune Knights become pretty insane since they were already great, but just balance encounters around the new power level and it's all good. 🤷♂️
Good video. I still think wizards & eldrich knights should get the shield spell. Could just say no to the multiclassing option. (The shield spell could raise your AC to 18 or 20; not much casting it if it’s already your AC). I like the damage bonus not being tied to certain weapons & feats.
My favourite shield fix is that it adds 5, but only up to a max of 20. Usually works perfectly with casters but makes it much less useful for breaking bounded accuracy Another good alternative is add spellcasting modifier. Less op at lower levels, and forces more MADness on people taking dips
The single house rule that we use is flanking gives +1 to attack rolls. Every group I played accepted the rule and we've always enjoyed the minor buff that comes together with more dynamicity in combats.
I like this too, I think advantage from flanking cheapens advantage from class features and situations too much. Why reckless attack if you can just flank.
This is the only flanking rule that makes sense (besides no rules for flanking). With bounded accuracy a +2 bonus is too much, and of course giving advantage is a horrible idea - that nullifies so many class features and condition effects that I am disappointed the DM guide even has it listed as an option.
@@Prismatic_Rain Is a +2 really too much for the situation? I mean, if someone is fending off attacks from the front and rear, outnumbered by two or more foes who aren't themselves threatened by any hostile creatures, a +2 seems almost *underwhelming*
You could also use 1st Edition rules: Side Flank +2 to hit. Target can only use shield if you're attacking on the side they're holding the shield. Rear Flank +4 to hit. Target cannot use shield. Target does not get DEX bonus to AC. Limit engaged characters from freely sweeping around enemies and getting behind them (ie: limit the move to a 5' adjustment/turn around the enemy while staying engaged, otherwise provoke a opportunity attack). More miniature wargamey, but makes using allies and terrain to protect flanks more tactically important.
@@WhamBamTySam it's not. I will post on reddit in the next days how a stupid +2 increased in 40% the damage output of a PC in retrospective analysis. Of course, depends on the build.
Silvery Barbs is not stronger than Shield. Silvery Barbs works for *one* disadvantage roll and *one* advantage roll. Sure, you can cause a monster to miss *one* attack, but what if it has multi-attack? Or if you're fighting more than one monster? Shield on the other is going to give you +5 for an *entire round*, against multiple monsters beating on you with multiple attacks.
@@orly444You misunderstand. You typically don't use silvery barbs against attack. Silvery Barbs is used to do things like forcing a creature to fail a save-or-suck spell.
I feel like this buffs bladesinger relative other wizard spell classes, because they can still get a decent AC bonus, even without shield, especially at higher levels. I'm not mad about that.
I think these changes are super interesting and am definitely going to play test them in my games! My main curiosity with option one is the fact that I have personally interpreted the high AC of casters via shield as an incentive to attack the martials instead of the casters. The lower AC of martials incentivizes me as a DM to attack the martials and dig into their higher health pools. If the the martials ALSO have a high AC, it means that I as a DM am not as incentivized to attack them so I often see my martials not going for this. However, all the above information could just be specific to my players, I definitely see this thematically being lovely and being a mechanically interesting option to put more pressure on the incredibly powerful wizards and sorcerers. Change 2 I have no immediate thoughts on. It seems very interesting and would like to give it a try! Change 3 is beautiful. Fantastic, absolutely no complaints. Please buff martials more. Your changes are DEFINITELY very intriguing and would love to give them a shot! Another great video 😁
I have not tested these rules in DnD 5E but I have played in multiple other game systems where casters don't get armor so I can answer your first question: Yes monsters / the dm are going to want to attack the casters more. They will naturally see wizards as being both dangerous and see no armor and want to rush them down if possible. This will be a positive change for your game though for multiple reasons. For one tactics become more important and interesting, casters will want to stay back when possible martials will want to position themselves between the monsters and casters. Spell that allow casters to escape or create barriers or difficult terrain are better. Also teamwork will become more important and martials will have more responsibility and significance than ever as their job is no longer just to try and do as much damage as possible but to actively protect the casters and do damage. Shoving tripping grappling as well any ability that allows interception or causes disadvantage if another target is attacked are much more relevant if they can prevent the caster from taking a single hit while concentrating. Archers and rogues will want to single out any opponent that breaks the line and gets next to the wizard or warlock. Lastly there will be more tension and stakes for the casters. The wizard will be rightly nervous or panicking if there's an ogre 5 feet away from them or 4 goblins surrounding them and they can't just shield and be invulnerable for a round as a reaction. So overall these are all good things that were think will make the game more interesting than not.
@@TreantmonksTemple yes you do and thats why YOU need these houserules. You have a optimization channel and are playing with your patrons (who obviously love optimising as well), so you need stuff to keep multiclasses and min maxed PCs in check. Saying this stuff is needed to "Fix DnDs biggest Problems" is really over the top. I like your channel and love listening to your opinions. But many of the "problems" you are talking about in this video are only because you and your table will take shield on every martial or dip into other classes when its not on your classes spell list. Same for the Heavy Armor on every caster, thats a self made problem. So the "big stuff" you are talking about only aplies to tables like yours (which is fine, power to you for liking this aspect of the game) and should not be taken at face value by everyone watching this video. So people if you watch this and want to use all the rules because they will "fix" your game, think if any of these are even a factor at the moment. Except rule 3 I will def. steal that one.
Thanks for the suggestions, I'll discuss them with our group. Interesting, the two first problems are mostly created by multiclassing. I would never consider banning multiclassing, but playing with groups that do not allow them, showed me that actually it's possible to have more diversity with less options.
All in all, these three house rules makes multiclassing less optimal and thus lets you stick to your main class without losing out in optimization, and martials get the boost they need. I like it.
When I heard about your 3-rd house rule I suddenly realised, that for months almost all my optimised martial builds revolved around GWM, so I subconciously avoided every other option as inferior. The 1-st and 2-nd rules imo should be implemented if your players have similar playstyles (like all roleplayers or all optimisers etc.) In the games that I play, I am usually the only optimiser, so after a couple of sessions I become the target for DM (also because I don't get mad about my character getting focused, killed and having to create a new one), I build martials- I receive 200-300 damage every battle (at lvl 9-12) and usually end the battle with multiple instances of getting to 0 hp and back again (I kid you not, my Half-ork Barbarian had to take 30 difficulty Relentless Rage check), I build spellcasters and suddenly all my lvl 3-4 spellslots are used to counter PW Kill. And I don't "play to win at D&D", I just like building optimised characters and roleplaying around the optimisation. What I mean is, your character should be focused no more no less than others, otherwise you will die every combat almost certainly. So taking defensive options from a "squishy" character rubs me the wrong way. Though I must say, I totally agree with your 1-st and 2-nd rules in the situations you have described. You should take a look at your games and decide for yourself, how strong do you think casters are and how strong they should be.
I think we currently operate 3 house rules: 1) Potions as a bonus action (self) 2) DM-rolled death saves 3) Wild magic surge when counterspelling a counterspell (1) helps potions enter combat, (2) introduces more jeopardy when characters down, and (3) was for shits and giggles.
I love it, im gonna use those rules for sure. Especially the third rule, which is a nice way to remove the funnel of all/most optimized fighter build into GWM and SS. I wonder how this would do with your dual wield rework
I thought about that, and I wouldn't advise it. Adding more attacks to the attack action (which my houserule does) could present issues with the 3rd rule. I haven't tried them together though. The TWF video was just me brainstorming, these ones I've tried extensively.
@@TreantmonksTemple I listened to the 3rd option twice and I'm still confused about why you think the 3rd option would open up players to more creative uses of their bonus action.
@@NegatveSpace I think it's because, since most optimized martial builds get either SS or GWM, they are pressured to apply it on their bonus action as well to get maximum value (via either CBE, PM, and in some instances GWM). Making it action only relieves this pressure from perfect action economy optimizing in only 1 way and makes a more diverse set of BAs become the optimal thing.
Of the three problems you say are solved by your house rules, I was only partially aware of the shield spell problem... All this kind of blows my mind.
One immediate side effect I see to rule number two is that multiclassing actually becomes a detriment. Example: I'm playing a sorcerer/paladin and if I want to cast any of my sorcerer spells I need to basically dump my armor on the ground. You've basically soft banned many multiclass combos.
I think that's a good thing. sorc/paladin is still possible and can achieve decent armor with mage armor, and still sometimes wield a shield when it is not casting a spell. You can still get 2 levels for smites, turn sorc spellslots to sorcery points to use those spellslots. But anyone who wants to get the benefit of high spells cant get the benefit of full armor which fixes the meta of boring martial dips on every caster just for armor.
He pretty much spells out in the video that multiclassing is a problem. Wizards clanking around in heavy armour and carrying shields. I went for a 2 level fighter dip for my STR7 bard which is ridiculous. Action Surge on top of that armour proficiency is pretty broken and I kind of regret that silliness even though it is very effective. I see this approach as being like this: some spells are designed to fit with certain fighting styles. Paladins and Eldritch Knights learn simple spells that have been designed or modified with the confines of armour in mind, whatever detriment that imposes. (The metal shorts out the magic, is too hot and sweaty, restricts movement etc). But a Wizard School spell is designed to be cast in a comfortable wizard's tower or from behind a wall of armoured, musclebound oafs.
While I disagree the game is “better” with these house rules, I certainly appreciate the different perceptive. I have seen the shield spell used to great effect, but never would call it game breaking. As someone who has played a fighter with Defensive Duelist, I did have a slight advantage to the sorcerer in my party: my feat didn’t cost a spell slot. Both have their pros and cons, I just feel martial classes don’t get the credit they deserve because they aren’t as flashy as their magical counterparts. And that’s honestly how I view most spell casters in the game. Great and powerful in bursts, but once the spell slots are out they’re just stuck with cantrips.
Though is true, I've never played in a game where spell slots were limited on a regular basis. On a typical adventuring day I'm looking for opportunities to burn slots, not the other way around
@@trombonegamer14 In my experience also. The game was designed with more encounters per day than we typically see. But these days most people tend to prefer 1-2 encounters per day and to actually have a plot that advances, rather than being bogged down by lots and lots of combat. This does tend to break the 'spell economy' aspect of the game, especially at high level. I mean, to burn all the spell slots of a high level wizard, how many rounds of combat does the game expect us to have to have until the wizard starts actually running out? Who wants to play that many rounds of combat every adventuring day? At low level it works, because with only 3 slots, a 2nd level wizard has to ration those slots carefully.
I think if you played with a lot of optimizers you would see a dramatic increase to their natural Ac making them get something like 20 and then goes all the way to 25 with shield
Defensive Duelist only works against one attack. It is bad. You're meager +3 to AC at lvl 1 against one attack is never going to outdo the shield spell.
I notice you simply brushed over the "no, there's no trail of dead wizards" bit during your video. I find myself curious. How do unarmored spellcasters at your table defend themselves when the game's primary defensive spell is gone, AND they're not permitted to wear or use defensive equipment? Mage Armor may have entered the chat, but its presence in chat doesn't mean it's less of a crappy meme, and a tableful of 'optimancers' would never permit lower-AC characters to use or wear items such as Rings/Cloaks of Protection when they could give those things to the 24AC paladin instead. How have your spellcasters managed to survive given the fact that no DM alive doesn't immediately send their biggest threats straight at the squishy casters in the back and completely ignore any martials that happen to be standing in the way?
I mean, mage armor does get used a lot now, but there is definitely no way to have your Wizard have as good an AC as fighter in plate and shield anymore. My players have dealt with this by changing their tactics (and there was a learning curve after some close calls). More higher level defensive spells like mirror image and blink get used. Primarily though I've found lower AC characters will take a more cautious tactical approach in combat.
@@TreantmonksTemple Fair enough, and thank you for taking a moment to answer. My table is unsure of these rules, as we don't generally optimize so hard to _need_ the corrective measures these rules apply, but it provoked several hours of interesting (if occasionally heated) discussion yesterday. Good takeaway.
@@yurei8368 I'm very late here, and new to DM'ing, but as I'm gearing up for my first one-shot I feel like my fresh beginner mindset needs some clarity as well. Why are you metagaming your npc in every encounter to automatically attack the squishy targets? Leaping passed the martials..? Maybe given a very intelligent enemy with previous knowledge of the PCs, then they would know who is more dangerous than others, but I don't see why you would make that statement. Imo, a DM shouldn't be thinking anything like "I need to attack the casters." We should be thinking how the npc would be thinking. P.S. I mean no disrespect with the word metagaming. It is what it is, a DMs job is to metagame, but we need to do it from the perspective of the npc, not our own
@@chillynewberg2652 In most DnD settings adventurers are fairly well known (at least as an idea), so even goblins would know that arcane casters are glass cannons.
Protecting the mage is one of the challenges of running a party. 5E has leveled the playing field between everyone, and that's silly as hell. A bookworm should not be as hard to hurt as a fighter. This whole "but it doesn't feel fair" mentality is cancer.
i am a big fan of your house rules and will discuss them the next time we are playing. thank you for all your work, really enjoy watching almost all of your videos
I do like these rules, for simplicities sake, and can see the purpose behind the first two. But personally, I haven't seen Sword/Shield as a bad option for martials beforehand. That Shield bonus does a lot, especially if you can get a magic shield with a + Bonus Another house rule I've considered is Inverting the rules for Attacks of Opportunity. "If a creature begins and ends their turn within reach of your weapon, you may use your Reaction to make an Attack of Opportunity against them" This is to keep characters and creatures moving around during the battle, trying to move in ways that corner opponents, and encouraging the use of control spells and tools to immobilize opponents Overall, to make for more dynamic encounters. Players should also consider ways to use their environment to corner opponents and to get themselves out of a corner
I like the opportunity attack idea however it would make feats like sentinel and polearm master and the class Cavalier a little wonky. Because sentinel is whenever you get hit by an oa they can't move setting up an endless loop of oa's. And polearm is whenever you enter reach. Still a neat idea though
the opportunity rule change sounds good on paper but ingame it'd be kind of a mess for the DM I Imagine. Having to move all of your monsters, the backline having no protection from you standing in the way of enemies.
@@chatyxd6078 True, it does have a couple odd implications for Cavalier's "Hold the Line" and Sentinel In the case of Hold the Line; It means that Cavalier Fighters can additionally get Opportunity Attacks against enemies moving through your reach - Still costs a reaction though, so while I think this feature is a bit more strong now, it's not exactly busted _ ______ _ As for Sentinel; this shouldn't actually cause a loop with the way it was worded "When you hit a creature with an opportunity attack, the creature's speed becomes 0 for the rest of the turn" Because the opportunity attack with the proposed change is triggered when a creature ends their turn still in your reach, the speed reduction is actually irrelevant (This does make the feat a bit weaker, so it may be worth making the feat a bit better, or just not worry about it. People may still want the feat to deny disengages or punish enemies trying to attack friends) _ ______ _ And on the topic of Polearm Master, I don't see this as particularly stronger than it already was beforehand 🤔 When all three are combined, the character is certainly good at getting a single target locked in one place and vulnerable to allies. But IMO, thats a good thing. I don't mind making this build stronger. Note: I would be hesitant to allow the UA Tunnel Fighter fighting style though. But this was already an abusable UA to keep a close eye on Overall, I don't think any other modifications are needed to make Inverting the Op Attacks a houserule
@@dolerbom I don't think it's too much to manage. But as a DM I usually use smaller target encounters and/or move enemies as groups Maybe it depends on the DM and their style, but I personally like moving the monsters around the board as they do their actions *The Dragon lifts from the ground circling overhead as a column of fiery breath engulfing those it passes over before ultimately landing over here at other side of the ravine. Those beneath the dragons path please make me a dexterity save* _ __________ _ As for the backline lacking protection from you standing in the way. That just means the frontline and backline have to consider other ways to play keep-away Consider as well what this is being compared to; With the usual mechanics for Op Attacks, it is rarely viable to retreat or navigate around enemies. Tokens on the board regularly glue their pieces together until they get KO'd _ _________ _ Both have pros and cons, sure. But I think mechanics that encourage players and monsters to move around will make both the environment the fight takes place in and tools the system provides more engaging IMO _ _________ _ In any case, If the players are struggling to adapt strategies, then you can course correct and use fewer mobs or play them less tactically. Considering CRs are a poor way to judge difficulty anyway, this isn't different from normal DM
I can already hear the, "But my table doesn't optimize like that." Mind you, these are the same people who will argue sports rules for a sport they've never played.
Heavily disagree with the shield spell ban. Shield is a spell to accomidate the issue that most enemies of a given level can 1 hit wizards, sorcerers and warlocks. Especially if you are saying they cannot take heavier armor (which ive honestly never seen anyone do). The shield spell is essentially mandatory because there is no effective way for frontline PCs to prevent enemies circumventing them and just 'geeking the mage' as the saying goes.
its weird seeing the shield spell banned partly because its moot if the attack roll exceeds the max ac with the shield. you still get hit and it's resource burning at the same time. there were a few instances where even if I did have the op to use shield I wont take it because the roll exceeds the max ac with shield
I do think the Shield spell appears to be broken because too many DMs don’t require you to have a free hand to cast it, when the rules say you should. You only get one item interaction per round, and you can’t even doff a shield without an action. So your choices are to use your item interaction to keep sheathing your weapon, and then only have Shield open every other round, take the War Caster feat to stack a shield on Shield spell, or just have one hand free, which is great - more people leaving a free hand is something I want in my games. This also solves the problem with wizards having shields, if we require wizards to hold spell component pouches and focuses in one hand, and also a free hand for spells that don’t require material components. So wizards might wear armor, but not shields.
These are great house rules when you DM optimizers (as mentioned in the video). Luckily, I don't have to worry about that. My three groups hardly even think much about D&D outside of game night.
The house rule I’d like to try is inspired by ICRPG: Non-combat tasks get effort points, parallel to hit points in combat. You also have work dice, parallel to damage dice, (based on you total bonus). The idea is to open up non-combat tasks to a bit more progressive action. Creating more chance to mechanically represent things like working faster (increase work dice) at increased risk of complications. I imagine scenes like the rogue picking a lock while the brawn keeps the foes at bay, which would need several rolls/rounds to do the work, and allowing a choice or trade off between slow and steady or rushing with potential to finish fast but also fail hard. (Other than that I’d also like more or even all magic to require a d20 roll with the chance of a failure. And I like the DMG gritty option: 8 hour short rest, 7 day long rest.)
I think that there is an important distinction to be made when talking about house rules. In my experience house rules that bloat the game and make it harder to run are those that change the core of rules. Things like changing the way grappling or attunement works are difficult to keep track of because they are so fundamental that they aren't usually referenced during the game. On the other hand, changes to specific spells or abilities have never caused me or my players any technical issues (although it's still important to make sure that the change does not cause further mechanical problems). That's because they usually are referenced during play and (almost) nobody knows them by heart, so modifying the rules text on one's character sheet doesn't lead to confusion.
But... I love Shield-spell. AC tanking bladesinger is my bliss. Don't take my bliss. Grapple me, knock me prone, hit me with save spells, but don't take my bliss :'( I like rule 2 & 3 though. Might replace rule 1 with crits do max damage of a regular hit + rolled dice instead.
I love these rules, I think I will implement them in my games. My personal house rule: Hexblades only exist as a straight class, no multiclassing in or out.
A lot of #1 and #2 seems to me to be fixing "issues" that only exist in stuff like Adventures League and the like that are more about playing a game than playing a character. Which, sure, some people do play like this, but I definitely don't see this at my table. *Maybe* #3, mostly for the 1h-weapon users and the monks out there. I'd probably instead make everyone a Battlemaster though, since that not only buffs martials, but more importantly *gives them* ***options*** that they can use in combat. #3 numerically works, but doesnt help any of the issues that people bring up with martials saying "I attack" 2+ times and passing their turn.
Outstanding contribution to the game - well done and thank you. (I also really like your two-weapon fighting hack too.) I think rule #3 works but it covers over the root problem that there are too many bonuses that diminishes the dice: e.g. it makes for hit points being too high when compared to weapon damage (dice) This leads to weapon uses needing a +10 to damage to be effective; and diminishes bounded accuracy. Alternate Rule #3 - when you take the attack action, you can choose to use your PB on your attack roll to hit (default) .... or use it for extra damage. You must declare before rolling. The damage you can add to your roll is seen on the following table. PB. Extra damage die ----------------------------------- 2. d4 3. d6 4. d8 5. d10 6. d12
My group has a house rule where a nat 1 melee attack opens the attacker up for an attack of opportunity for the person they attacked, aka a fumble. This has never been an issue at the table and it's cause a lot of awesome moments.
We had critical fails at my table for a while and it did create some fun moments (there are some great mobile apps with creative random effects when someone rolls a 1), but when we got to high level and people started having 3+ attacks a turn it felt like nearly every turn someone or even several people would crit fail. It ended up slowing the game down and worse than that it didn't feel right that the stronger the characters got the more chance they'd drop their weapon or hit their comrade so we ended up removing the rule. I did consider reducing the chance of it happening (if you roll a 1, then roll again and if you roll less than 10, then as they got higher less than 5 etc.) but it just meant every turn was taking longer and longer. Shame as it can create some awesome moments as you say
I've been working on a massive homebrew on DnD recently which includes a rework of martial combat as a whole (among a LOT of other things). One of the rules I tried was exactly that of providing the -5, +10 to all attacks as a built in ability. The way I balanced the issue of smaller weapons becoming too strong was simply to change the rule into: "You can take a -5 to the attack roll, to double the damage dice of the attack. " This generally worked really well for my homebrew due to several reasons, but I really do think it's fairly balanced. It is obviously much less powerful than the +10 to damage, but to be fair...the +10 is a bit too strong anyway. (The doubling of the dice also works as a double double on critical hits by the way, which is really cool and almost always ensures good numbers on a critical hit).
I have 2 DM's. Neither of them declare their attack roll totals, they simply state whether the attack hits or not. That makes the shield spell a gamble that doesn't always work and it helps balance the spell. Unfortunately it creates other problems with many features that affect dice rolls but must be used after the dice is rolled but before the outcome is determined. In those cases you again have to gamble and state you are using it before the DM declares the result. Another note I think reactions are cool in concept for the players but are mostly annoying for DM's and slows down gameplay.
We do something similar. Broad strokes of the rule: if you can so something after learning the roll or results, that implies some kind of prophetic, fate altering, or time manipulation mechanic is in play. If those aren't in play, then you don't get to mess with the dice or their results after they're rolled. Exception, we add the ability to do it to those horrible "look at a creature and learn if one of its parameters is better or worse than yours" features, since you become intimately aware of what a good or bad effort on their target's part looks like, makes that ability not a disappointment, and makes scoping out a dangerous target more important.
The only issue with that is that Shield is still a safe thing to pop if you're about to get attacked by multiple monsters and makes almost all the one-attack defensive reactions near useless.
I used a similar approach when I was running GURPS, simplifying most rules into the first two house rules, and then a small benefit from the third house rule which focused character creation to the campaign theme. I enjoy these meta advice videos.
Arguably TWF is buffed by the one handed buff though. I thought the reason it was always so poor is that it couldn't compete with GWF. With GWF nerfed, doesn't it become a viable option again?
Better than just buffing TWF, rule 3 makes it almost too good. 5e has a lot of ways to add damage to every attack you make (look at Hex, Rage, and Hunter's Mark as the classic examples) and they're balanced in relation to the fighting styles. Dual wielders get more use out of effects like those, as well as Divine Smite and similar resource-based nova damage, because they're getting more attacks. Now they can ALSO get the one thing that kept two-handed fighting ahead, AND they get more use out of it, because they always get one more attack than someone not dual-wielding (so an extra 10 damage every turn). I find it funny that the optimization community has given up on dual-wielding for so long, they can make it overpowered and not even realize.
@@MyRegularNameWasTaken Actually no, it doesn't work on the bonus action attack. Maybe you should reread those rules again cause it looks like you might have missed a thing or two.
There’s one that I’ve been mulling over in my head but have had no time to test yet. It’s specific to warlocks, but I’m a bit of a warlock mark, so whatever. You know that text in Hexblade that allows you to use charisma in weapon attacks and damage? Copy that and paste it into Pact of the Blade. I’ve been wanting to see a weapon using fiend or genie warlock forever, but it’s way too much of a stretch on ability scores to justify. This would take eyes off the Hexblade (something that I think NEEDS to happen) and give the other warlock subclasses some more options. Hexblade already has medium armor and shields as well as Hexblade curse. That should be enough.
I've played quite a bit with that exact house rule. It certainly works fine, though I don't think it ends up having a dramatic impact. Pact of the Blade warlocks certainly get played, but not extensively in my experience.
I think that medium armor and shields also have to go to Pact of the Blade. Hexblade Curse would be perfectly fine as a standalone lvl 1 subclass feature. You may tinker with the number of uses a bit if you think it would be underpowered.
@@antongrigoryev6381 This is precisely why when i played a PoB warlock I took a three level dip into fighter. Well that and I wanted my warlock weapon to be a Maul (two handed)
@@peterberg3446 You don't need a dip for getting Maul as a Pact Weapon, no? You can get any weapon that isn't ranged (and even that restriction goes away with one of the Invocations), and you gain proficiency with any Pact Weapon.
@@antongrigoryev6381 there is an UA invocation (Eldritch Armor or something) that gives proficiency in armor to the pact of blade, but because of reasons it (and +2 and +3 variations of Improved Pact Weapon) is still an UA after Tashas and other new books. I really waited this invocations in Tasha, but good things just can't happen with non-hexblades.
I can understand the house rules piling up. Usually keep mine are as a supplement, or replace entire sections; such as a simplified exploration and resource management system, or Mr. Rhexx's magic item enchanting/pricing system.
I have complete respect for your opinions and these houserules, you have a ton of playtesting time with them, but I cannot agree to the first two. I think removing shield is trying to fix a problem with the AC of martials being low by nerfing casters, and maybe that's a fair solution given the power of casting in 5e, but I think the problem is better solved through giving martials better ways to improve AC rather than dumping shield altogether. The second rule just doesn't make sense to me, because it feels like a direct nerf to multiclassing. Don't get me wrong, multiclassing can create powerful builds, but it comes with its own set of caveats and limitations that are already rather constricting in my experience. Maybe our game styles are just different, but I never feel like the solution in 5e is to nerf or remove content to maintain balance
I agree that buffing is better than nerfing when it comes to balance. But nerfing or, removing things from the game is much easier to do and much easier to remember. and simplicity is a big focus for this revision.
I think the real beauty of these houserules is in their simplicity. Sure, instead of removing the shield spell you could come up with an elaborate set of rules for increasing the AC of martial classes but that makes the game more complex and convoluted. The second rule does nerf some multiclass options, but lets be honest, most optimized builds take advantage of getting armor proficiency and spellcasting resulting in having the best of both worlds. The bottom line is while buffing rather than nerfing is the nicest thing to do, it’s not always the correct choice. Keeping things simple and straightforward should always be paramount even if that means a nerf rather than a buff.
Yea I don't get the second rule either. If you don't want people to benefit from multi classing then just house rule no multi classing. Even if you only specifically mind non-casters dipping 1 in to a caster level, just to get shield, then just house rule that this isn't allowed. It seems overkill to remove an entire spell that gives dedicated casters a good defensive spell, just to nerf this specific kind of multi classing.
It's a tough balance because boosts to AC get better the higher it is until enemies only hit you on a nat 20, at which point adding in more does nothing. IE: going from getting hit on a 3-20 to getting hit on a 4-20 still means that most attacks directed at you will hit, but going from getting hit on a 19-20 to only on a 20 negates half the hits you would otherwise be taking. I'm not a 5e guy, I just find the discussions interesting, so take my opinion with a grain of salt, but would giving martials a "shield" reaction help here if you're sticking with a high-AC game? IIRC weapon + shield is the least viable weapon combination, so giving it a +3 AC (combining with the +2 from the shield itself to match the Shield spell) reaction for yourself or an adjacent ally could go a long way towards making a pure martial tank playstyle viable. While it's a strong reaction with no resource cost, the fact that it's locking you in to a weaker weapon setup and stopping you from making opportunity attacks makes it even out somewhat. Maybe also limit it to the Defense or Protection fighting style (either replacing or combining with the Protection-style feature), you may want to give other fighting styles special action options as well though.
I respect your take and sympathize with your concern, but this improves a lot with very few words. The primary concern with balance in 5e rests on the shoulders of spellcasters, which enfeebles martial classes by comparison. We have two options there: buff martials or nerf spellcasters. Judging from the sizeable benefit the party receives in creativity and theme as well as fair exchange, a single 1st level spell and class relevant armor casting are two very minor rules that do a lot to achieve homeostasis, especially when paired with the GWM rip on the third rule. Those are minor nerfs that changes very little mechanically, ironically opens choice by eliminating the must-haves in optimization, and most importantly are minor and effective nerfs happening to classes that are at the furthest rightward tip of the power curve in 5e. The third rule is just a simple option buff for martials that push them further up. The point of these rules were to be simple ✅ effective ✅ minor ✅ and add more experientially to the game than they remove ✅. Biases and discomforts with nerfs aside, with which I truly relate, I believe Chris achieved this and bettered the game because of it.
@@jelte3754 It does make tanks tankier but due to the accuracy debuff, the tank doesn't attribute to the victory much. They become unattractive to attack, don't hurt the foe, and become encouraged to take choke points.
I liked the handful of house rules my old DM had. Most of them applied at character creation or the beginning of the campaign. 1. Campaigns start at a minimum of level 5. This allows PCs to feel like heroes right from the start, and have more compelling backstories. It also allows most multiclass builds to be fully set up and good to go. 2. There has to be a story/in-universe reason for a multiclass build. It doesn't have to be a big, complicated reason. But it has to be more than "I dipped into fighter for action surge". Why did your character get that training? 3. You can only multiclass once. It doesn't matter if the build is dipping into just a few levels, or it's an even split. You can only have two classes in one PC, max. This just keeps things simple across the board. 4. Every PC starts with one magic item, approved by the DM. My DM figured since we start at least level 5, we'd have one by now, just like if we'd reached the same point in a campaign from level 1. It gave us one more way to customize our builds. (This was back in the days of Pathfinder. Not sure how well this last one works in 5e.) Oh, and everyone got a free feat at level 1. This was just to encourage a couple players in our party to play anything other than human if they wanted, lol. They had a reputation of never playing other races because of that extra feat and we didn't want them to continue to feel obligated.
I like making the shield spell add the same AC as the level of spell used to cast it. Need a +8 to avoid that dragon bite? It’s gonna cost you an 8th level spell. I feel like this keeps up with level progression, and it keeps half casters and martials from getting crazy ac with it.
A great set of rules. I have been using rule 3 for a while but using the old Power Attack chassis and your proficiency bonus as the limits. This gives some advantages back to versatile and 2 handed weapons. If you don’t know power attack it works like this, you subtract up to your proficiency bonus from attack roll and then get the same bonus to damage if using 1H weapon, 1.5 x bonus if using a versatile weapon with both hands and then 2x bonus to damage if using 2H weapon.
I can't say I'm a fan of the first two changes as presented. They seem like straight nerfs to primary casters without giving them anything in return. I already feel that casters were significantly nerfed in 5e (compared to 3.5/Pathfinder) because of the excessive restrictions on concentration spells, but the ability to wear armor by dipping one level (with no arcane failure chance) somewhat made up for that. If you're going to restrict casters' ability to protect themselves with armor, then I feel you need to give them something to make up for it.
Yeah, I used to like layering defensive spells in older editions and it just doesn't work that well anymore. Stoneskin went from a great spell to garbage.
They are absolutely nerfs to the primary casters without providing anything in return. Though in my experience, casters were still king in 5e even with concentration mechanics, so my opinion was that further balancing was a good thing.
You really don't. Having squishy casters makes teamwork more important which is only good for the game. If your casters are actually squishy then tank builds are actually viable and valuable. It make cover, terrain, and battlefield features more important - again which is generally good for the game - not just for the rogue, but for casters to use to take shelter. 5e let casters cast a levelled spell every turn in combat, there has to be a trade-off for that to stop casters completely dominating the game.
@@agilemind6241 the trade-off is that many of the leveled spells are significantly worse than they were in 3.5/Pathfinder because they now require concentration. Spells like Stoneskin, Fly, and Haste (just to name a few) were heavily nerfed in 5e by adding the concentration requirement, and I always viewed the ability to be an armored caster as a compensation for that. And it's not like it's free! You still have to take a level dip, which sets your spellcasting progression behind for the whole campaign. I'd be happy to give up Shield and armor if you give me those spells back without concentration :)
Rule of Shield Spell can be fixed easy enough: Gives 1 AC / caster level, up to 5. This means it's only questionably useful for dip, but still serves its purpose for casters intended to have it. Rule 2 is pretty reasonable, but I would still provide for racial proficiency. 3 is really interesting. I'll give it some thought and consider using it for my next group. Nice video. Edit: One rule I have used that actually helps a lot is that armor *actually protects you.* What I mean by this is that in addition to the normal way it is used and behaves, it provides damage reduction (that stacks with innate sources of it, like Barbarian class features, but not magical bonuses like Stoneskin). Light gives DR 1/Magic, Medium gives DR 2/Magic, Heavy gives DR 3/Magic. This does not apply to any attacks or effects that would ignore or deny your armor bonus. I have also used rules that gives shields a chance to actually block an attack (when Defensively Fighting, Combat Expertise, or similar action). The rules for this were a bit more complex than the types described in the video, but still very much in the spirit of how combat rules operate in D&D in general. Bear in mind that this was for 3.5 as well. 4th and 5th don't really interest me.
how about this. this rule + variant human gets changed to +2/+1, one proficiency and one expertise of their choice as their class feature. So this way, you still have people playing the human race.
Sounds like there's not much point in banning Variant Human and Custom Lineage in this scenario. Now they're naturally outperformed by every other race. The main strength of these 2 races is the free feat. They don't really get much else in addition to it. Now everyone can get a free feat PLUS all the other racial bonuses. You should ban Half-Elf and/or Yuan-Ti.
One simple and fun house rule that my group uses is to maximize the damage of the additional dice on critical hits. A critical hit with a greatsword does 2d6+12 instead of 4d6. This makes the critical hit meaningful and deadly. It also avoids the frustrating situation of rolling low and doing less damage than a regular hit. Combat feels more exciting this way.
Weird. I have never noticed any issue with Shield. Usually one, maybe two characters in the party have it. It's handy, but it takes up a spell slot and doesn't protect for saving throws.
@@zikuanli8483 Agreed. I have very few house rules, mostly house interpretations, and they are very much tailored for our table. Our wizards don't tend to armor up for instance, because it just feels wrong.
There are so many problems bigger than the ones you talk about. Don't let Devil's Sight see through Darkness, don't have forced movement trigger damage and effects that are caused by moving, Paladins are limited to use spell slots for which they have a prepared Paladin spell when using divine smite. Most outlier damage builds abuse Smites or splash Warlock. On combat feats: -5/+10 is not a good rule for D&D feats, much less as a baseline, as it adds a tremendous amount of variance and a much higher upper bound to potential damage, potentially ruining encounters. The problem isn't the mathematical average damage, it's the large upper limit that can trivialize cinematic fights with lots of luck. It's a problem that someone only looking at average damage will miss. As a DM you don't want the player to action surge and happen to land all these shots, but you also don't want the player to miss all those attacks due to the -5 either. A better bet is to tone down the feat. Look at this another way; if these feats provided a -2/+4 they would still be the best combat feats for damage output in the game. (I'd use -3/+6 as a throw back to the old 18:00 2nd edition bonus but I am dumb that way.) On Shield: Shield can't be used unless a hand is free unless you have Warcaster or the class gives you the ability to make your weapon your focus. That's a hefty price for using this spell. Since the rules don't talk about the specifics of "using" a two handed weapon, you can just say if you attacked with a two handed weapon, both hands are occupied until the beginning of your next turn. If you balance against Shield, characters will use their spell slots fairly quickly. Unless the players get a long rest after every encounter, the slots will go quick.
I love these, they are all great. It took me a few moments when I first heard rule 3 to decide because I don't want to increase the empower of low level characters (I like the struggle early on to survive with low powered characters). But the -5 hits hardest at those first few levels so it is a good choice that has compromise. The one thing I am not sure on is how well it would work with a multiclass Fighter/spellcaster. The one other homebrew rule I am likely to impose is action surge doesn't work for spells. I hate that thematically and power-wise.
My go to tell for a bad house rule or homebrew mechanic is one that requires the reference of a table or adds an additional step to resolving an action in combat. The other obvious you covered in rules looking for a problem to solve; for instance monk issues - if you or your monks aren't having issues, don't add any of the optional rules because you aren't solving a problem. When making a house rule, identify what the problem is and most importantly, why it's a problem. If you can't answer these, they you're adding a rule complication for its own sake. Secondly, after drafting your rule, determine if it increases the time it takes to resolve actions. If that answer is yes, you probably need to adjust it, or more likely, toss it.
The third one will have consequences, you won't see any 2-handed melee weapons in the hands of your min-maxer players. I don't understand the point of this homebrew rule. You should fix the issue with sword and board and 2-weapon fighting than reversing the issue imo.
Totally agree with this. In fact I think this rule creates an even worse problem. At least at the moment there is still reason to use shields, it does add 2 ac after all. But with this home rule, the damage advantage of great weapons is so minimal you'd never use them if optimizing, except maybe a Halberd Mastery build, which would still be decent. Buffing the shield master feat and feats related to other weapons is probably a better solution. However, that is more complex, which I guess is what Chris is trying to avoid. There are plusses and minuses to everything.
@@jeffx40 I think the complexity is needed though because different fighting styles should be different. Adding -5 +10 to everything makes all fighting styles the same damage wise. Sheilds should be the defensive option, two weapon fighting so be in-between damage and defense, two handed fighting should be the damage option, and range is the range option. Everything shouldn't be made just as good at damage
@@theeye8276 Yeah, I agree with you. Chris is looking for a simple answer to a problem that doesn't have one. Though you can fix it without being too complex imo. For instance, with the Shield Master feat you can knock an enemy prone woth your bonus action, but not until after you've taken the attack action. Switch it to being able to be used before the attack action and suddenly sword and board will be solid as you'll be attacking with advantage all the time. Give two weapon fighting some sort of similer buff and you can make them all viable instead just shifting the focus to sword and board and making the other styles pointless. They'd all be viable in a way that feels unique too, instead just all doing the same thing like this rule encourages. So while I agree with his point of trying to not have too many rules to remember, I personally think he overcompensated and went too simple with his changes leading to other problems.
@@jeffx40 Shouldn't two-handed heavy weapons already have a damage advantage due to their higher damage die/dice? I think the real problem is that without feats the weapon options just aren't well balanced or accurately representing the pros and cons of selecting one over another. It's even made worse by the terrible dual wielding rules and the disconnect between weapon design and fighting styles (except for maybe archery). In my opinion, the weapons system needs a fix that doesn't rely on feats. I'm not sure what to do about two weapon fighting but I think the fix for two-handed weapons is a bigger base average damage advantage through more dice rather than bigger dice for fighting two-handed. There's a reason why the Great Weapon Fighting style works better for Greatsword and Maul than the others and that is that they get more dice to reroll. I say change all the versatile weapons to 2d4 and give them an extra 1d4 when used two-handed. Similarly, amp up the damage dice of all weapons that must be used two-handed - 3d4 to weapons with reach and 4d4 to weapons without reach. Once the gap between the base average damages of different weapon options has been sufficiently widened, I don't see a reason why anyone couldn't "swing wildly" a melee weapon, whether you use the -5/+10 rule or the -prof/+double prof version many posted in other comments.
this problem is inherent to the mechanical problem at the core of GWM that it adds a straight bonus of 10 to damage. we can get a similar but improved result by allowing GWM to triple weapon damage dice on a hit, so 1d8+10 (average result 14.5) becomes 3d8 (average result 13.5) whereas 2d6+10 (Average result 17) becomes 6d6 (average result 21). those numbers look less disparate when you factor in ability score bonuses, plus the fighting style bonuses, so a S+B longsword user with dueling and 18 str averages 19.5 with an AC of 20, while a greatsword user with defense and 18 str averages 25 with an AC of 19. So a 27 percent increase in average damage in exchange for 1 AC. whereas with the straight +10 it's a pitiful 1.5 more damage per hit in exchange for 1 AC, which is not an exchange anyone sensible would make. This fix also helps to provide a better reason to use greatswords/axes as opposed to twohanded polearms, which only use a d10 for damage (with the fix, 3d10+4 averages to 20.5, slightly better than the S+B damage but significantly less than the greatsword)
I especially like the GWM/Sharpshooter fix, although I would modify it slightly as follows: When you use the attack action to make an attack using a weapon or unarmed strike, you may choose to take a penalty equal to you proficiency bonus to that attack roll. If that attack hits, you add twice your proficiency bonus to the damage roll. This way it scales more with level and is less swingly at low to mid level. Edit: The only issue might be that its almost always worth using still (haven't done the math yet).
Could not disagree more with the game being better without the shield spell, reaction spells are fun and allow suspense of if things will be a success or not. I have home brewed that the spell must be used when made the target of an attack. So the player has to be quick on their feet before I give the total. Adds a layer of u players paying attention and weakens the spell a tad.
Changing shield so it must be used before the attack roll is made certainly would be an interesting house rule to try. In my playtest, I found getting rid of it to be a good thing.
It seems the main issue Treantmonk has is the breaking down of bounded accuracy, which is indeed an issue. But no need for any of these house rules to fix it. I have one simple, elegant solution: Auto hit on 18, 19, 20. An 18 is a grazing hit, inflicting half dmg, round up (unless the attack would have hit normally on an 18, in which case it is a normal hit). A 19 is a normal hit, and a 20 is a crit. Nice, simple, and elegant, Fixes high ACs in one go. Now, no matter how well armoured, multiple minions can hit a highly armoured opponent 3 times out of 20 regardless of AC, 15% chance instead of 5% chance. No more will hordes of low level minions be a trivial encounter. It brings diminishing returns trying to maximise AC, meaning more varied builds with altrernate forms of damage mitigation or reduction such as uncanny dodge.
Treantmonk: these house rules make game better Me: I believe you, tell me already Treantmonk: rule 1, remove Shield spell Me, Bladesinger wizard player: *TRIGGERED*
If #2 is implemented, I'd like to see it come along with mage armor being automatically known by wizards and sorcerers. This is in the same vein as the relatively common house rule that turns Eldritch Blast into a class feature. It's such an important option that you really wouldn't want it to come at the expense of another spell known, especially on a sorcerer who knows so few spells to begin with.
The house rule I’ve been using for a few years now that works really well is that everybody who shows up on time ready to go gets a free inspiration.
Ha, great!
Or if they bring food :3
Oh man thats hilarious and Amazing
Me too
Top notch recommendations. Thank you.
I think the second rule is pretty focused on optimized play. My groups have never had the problem of wizards and sorcerers in half plate because it just doesn't fit in with the fantasy my players have. They're not super into optimized play
I agree. This set of houserules will work best if you're playing online or at public tables with people who come in with Adventurer's League-style chararacters.
Meanwhile I had a warforged wizard with 22 ac in DoA who never got any magic items because she was just the tankiest player there and it took Zariel and her massive statblock to even down/damage them. So I can see it being a real concern.
Gotta love these kinds of players.
You don’t have to be that much of an optimizer to get heavy or at least medium armor with a caster.
Same here. I’ve almost exclusively played wizards and sorcerers since I started playing 5e in 2016 and I’ve never been tempted to build my wizard this way. These rules are clearly for optimized tables
My favorite implementation of rule 3 is proficiency penalty to attack, twice proficiency bonus to damage.
Hey that's exactly what I do, too! :)
Is that an optional thing every attack or like a feat or something? Sounds like a lot of misses to me
@@petrus9067 original it replaced the numbers on SS and GWM.
I have changed my mind since leaving this comment though and this 'fix' doesn't work sadly.
I am instead working on a full weapons, fighting style and feat overhaul to remove this mechanic entirely and instead raise the average power level of martials.
@@NageIfar sounds more fun :) i saw an interesting livestream by Dungeon Dudes reviewing homebrew and one of the entries was basically a feat that let you with swords assume different stances each turn that change your playstyle, sounded rrally interesting to me maybe you can use as inspiratjon
@@petrus9067 I tried this for the Dueling Fighting Style with a Defensive and Offensive Stance; but i fear this adds too much bloat/turn time.
I think most of these house rules are fixing issues that don’t exist in most games. Perhaps they help in games where the whole table is full of optimizers, but in your standard game with casual players they might actually hurt gameplay. I think the optimization community sometimes loses track of what a standard game table is like.
I mean, look at the channel you’re watching man, of course he’s going to talk from that perspective
Yeah in my tables we tend to not have hyper-optimized builds, and if they are, it is usually to make some sort of silly concept work, not just playing the best d&d character possible in every way. There's usually 1-2 people with Shield, maybe half the party in armor, and plenty of folks just playing fun casual stuff like monks and barbarians. As long as each player is respectful and doesn't try to outshine the others, I don't think any of these are necesarry at 99% of tables.
But if you happen to be Treantmonk running games for patrons of your optimization UA-cam channel, then I can totally understand why implementing some of these rules would make from much more interesting and fun parties.
I see where you are coming from, but I very much disagree. The main thing all three of these changes do is reduce the power difference between casters and martials, and that power difference is very real in both optimized and unoptimized games, and becomes more and more pronounced the higher you get in level.
The 2nd rule is the only one that only really effects optimizers, and it does so in such a way that you can just tell the more casual players at a table they don't need to even bother reading it if they don't want to because it will only effect them if they want to multiclass or pick up an armor feat on a spell caster, both of which are very atypical for a casual player to want to do. It also only ever has to be thought about by anyone during level ups, so its okay if no one except the DM remembers this rule even exists 99% of the time. If you have a full table of casual players, you could easily just not include the 2nd rule as they will effectively be following it even without knowing it exists.
Where these rules really shine is in a table where you have some players who are optimizers, and some who are casuals, as alongside reducing the gap between casters and maritals, it also reduces it between optimizers and non optimizers. For casters in the group now the casuals have a similar AC as the optimizers, and the martial casuals now deal similar damage to the optimized ones.
I agree.
My experience is that unless you mostly have new players you usually get one optimizer. And that's worse than an entire table of them. Out table recently lost it's one optimizer but I have a fairly good idea of which one of the new players will eventually start optimizing.
I find your list kinda perplexing, but then again I don't play at a table full of optimizers. If anything, I need to house-rule stuff to make them more powerful because they frequently do things that are so sub-optimal that it risks TPKs on encounters which by rights should be trivial.
Super interesting to learn about how you do things at your table, as always :)
As a new player: the Shield spell is just COOL. (Independent of its power.) Reactions in general are cool, and Shield is the coolest reaction. The fantasy of throwing up a magical shield to barely stop an incoming flurry of attacks is just awesome fantasy. So I know I would be sad to lose it.
I also love the fantasy of spell-slinging frontline fighters in armor and shield.
So my objections are actually thematic. :)
IMO, Shield has a power issue for its resource cost. I also love having it from a thematic standpoint.
Make it +2 or +3 , scaling at +1 AC per higher level spell slot.
Works best if your DM tells you the hit result, which is the case in my games, because the resource-vs-benefit decision outweighs the "I feel bad because I wasted resources" downer induced by the opposite. Your table, your preferences :)
I have to agree with some of the people here, while I can understand these rules being inacted in a power-playing table it hasn't been a problem at my table.
My over two decades of RPG experience makes optimization second nature. When I play with newer, more casual players they're like "Wtf? How?"
The one house rule I use for about 2 years is... Everyone starts with a feat at lvl 1. This make my players come up with a lot more fun and wacky builds, also makes some more viable like dual-wielding.
Awesome
I also thought just to say: you can take on free feat(no v human but regular human can stuck 2 +2 instead of 4 +1) but only whacky feats. Not weapons feat,raicel or battle mage and other very meta feats. And if you like a feat and you think its to weak a. Dont be if its fun its fun but b. I will buff it for you
My current rule is a +2 to a stat. I think I might change it to a feat. Or give them the choice.
I do this as well and it works great, but with limitations. I automatically allow any “initiate” feat, or half feat (but they don’t get the ASI.) Any other feat is up to my deliberation, but I only try to veer away from the super meta picks (GWM, Sharpshooter, etc.) I love seeing the fun builds my players come up with without worrying about burning an ASI or feat they need to keep up
Personally, as a DM, I think it's important to do routine housekeeping by rotating out house rules. I keep a 2 page limit to my house rules. If I exceed that, then I cut the worst rules out beforehand
When rolling damage for a crit, we max the damage of the initial die and roll one on top of it. Ensures that a crit is always better than a regular hit.
Does it work with attack cantrips/spells and/or divine smite/sneak attacks?
The downside to this one (and I've been playing with this same rule) is that it makes characters who add lots of damage dice to a single hit much much stronger, so Rogues and Paladins.
Oh, I like this. I don't like seeing the disappointment on a player's face when they roll really low on a crit and end up doing less damage than a regular hit. I'll give this a try!
I use this as well, I hate it when my players crit and then only do like 7 points of damage
or just... add up all the damage (yes even the +x at the end) and then double it. "double (only) the dice" is a thing i never understood in 5e
One thing I like about #1 & #2 is that it reinforces a bit of a social compact between players and DMs. Players get more squishy, but DM will choose monsters that will miss more by default, and we'll allow the wizard and sorcerers to avoid attacks through active decision making.
It seems like a pledge from the DM: "If you don't try to break the game, I won't try to punish you for playing the game how it was intended."
For example, if the DM bans Shield and shields and medium armor on Wizards, hopefully that DM won't have a bunch of monsters teleport back to the Wizard to attack that low AC. Folks might try to run past the Fighter, but this will give the Fighter a chance to stop those monsters. It's letting the players protect themselves through active and creative gameplay on the table, rather than passive feats.
What I hope could happen on the flip side: if someone really wanted to be the Mountain Dwarf Wizard, they get attacked as much as the Paladin in Plate. There's a particular fantasy to some kind of arcane front-liner, but that should be paid for in terms of subjecting such a wizard to the hazards of the front line.
I appreciate that these rules broaden the possibility of optimisation. Any changes that open up more effective character builds and concepts is a positive imo.
I'm very fortunate, my players don't tend to have a desire to push the limits of optimization so much so that there's a need for these house rules. Though, if they start, I'll be sure to implement them! Thanks Chris!!
My favourite Houserule is for two weapon fighting.
-only the second weapon needs to be Light.
-roll both damage on a hit, keep highest.
- if both rolls are the same, add them up.
No more bonus action hogging,
Sooo, if you roll max on a short sword and 6 on a long sword you get 12 damage? I like the idea of trading a shield/grapple option/spellcasting for essentially a safety net of damage to bring your damage floor up, but I’m very unsure about that last part about adding the damage rolls if they’re the same, that seems antithetical to the rest of the rule. It turns 1-8 damage favoring high numbers into 2-12 damage
Woh holy crap thats actually super based!
I really like this rule! Sounds fun.
Sounds cool! Probably I won't be using the add if same but I haven't done the math yet
That's an interesting concept. I don't think I'd add the die together for anything, but if dual wielding just made your damage that much more consistent or plays well into the fantasy and the mechanics.
I may talk to my about this one.
Edit: This could also work if you applied it to the Monk's Martial Arts too but on all Monk Weapons using the Monk's Martial Arts Dice instead of having to Dual Wield. . .
I love these house rules. Anything to narrow the gap between martials and spell casters is a good thing in my book. The only thing I would change is on Rule 3. -5/+10 Is pretty punishing for low level characters. Intead I would use minus your proficiency bonus to hit, double your proficiency bonus for damage. This makes it more achievable at lower levels and even more rewarding at higher levels
I wonder if disadvantage on attack, automatic crit, could be useful alternatively. Not possible if disadvantaged already, or just add 2 damage per -1 hit the player decides.
1) This makes War Wizards even better, and I am here for it.
2) This makes Valor and Swords Bards even better, and I am here for it.
3) This makes Monks suck less, and... sure, why not.
3) makes monks suck less, makes TWF suck less, gives all martials a free feat(except rogues and monks)
I think this makes Sword Bards much worse, I think the class was really carried by multiclassing and without it you will still only have 16 AC as a d8 class.
@@epicguy9678 Why 16?
@@NRMRKL Because a college of Swords Bard does not half shield prof, so with medium armor they have 16 ac
@@epicguy9678 That's pretty early on. Technically you could have a swords bard with half plate, medium armor master feat, dual wielder feat and 16+ dex score for a total of 19 AC. (still not accounting for Defensive Flourishes).
I'd keep shield, though require the user to be armorless like the Mage Armor spell. A pure caster should have that "oh Crap" button from an AC perspective, considering it's a very limited resource.
Never give your group a Staff of Defense..... You'll regret it 🤣
Yeah, I like that idea.
Well, that means bladesingers are still going to be AC gods. At high levels with maxed out int and dex, with blade song and mage armor, they have 23 AC, which becomes 28 with shield. Compare that to a fighter or paladin with +3 full plate and a +3 shield at 26 AC.
Once rule 2 is in, this is moot, and just hits Artificers really hard for no reason.
@@cmckee42 Well, bladesingers will still have terrible hp and so need to have more AC than a fighter or paladin just to have a CHANCE of not just getting murdered because they stepped onto the front lines. Also, all of these AC buffs take resources that the bladesinger cannot use in every fight. The 26 AC fighter or paladin will ALWAYS have 26 AC in the fight. I don't think it hurts bladesingers to be good at the thing the archetype is built to be good at.
Tested these rules (with a few tweaks) for almost 300 sessions now. Tweaks definitely needed in a few places, but by and large these rules have been a huge game-changer for leveling the playing field at my tables. Thank you!
When I keep seeing problems that arise due to a “one level dip,” it seems like the real problem isn’t with the shield spell or casting in armor, but with the multiclassing system in general.
Yeah, when listening to the first two I was thinking banning multiclassing would fix both those house rules.
This is true, but I'd rather solve issues that arise from multiclassing than ban it entirely because multiclassing offers a lot of creative freedom and options.
@CarminSteele I agree on this also. People have made many videos about weapons and armor not being interesting in 5e but no one wants to bring back what made armor different in older editions other than higher ac and stealth disadvantage.
Yeah. Now that the various "Guide to Everything" books have provided a lot more hybrid classes and subclasses, there's less of a need to use multiclassing for theme/concept reasons. Multiclassing has become a powergaming tool, pure and simple.
@@daviddalrymple2284 Disagree there's a big difference between power gaming And optimization. Power gaming is playing a level 20 wizard For anyone who understands the game. Optimization is allowing a Malay fighting character to not feel terrible when he has a 20th level wizard in his party.
Rule #2 is interesting to me for a couple of reasons.
a) It reminds me of the old (2e?) rule that arcane casters simply can't wear armor. I remember loving when that rule went away, but yeah, that made casters even more powerful than they already were. I like this houserule much better. Allows some armor, doesn't discriminate between arcane and divine casting, and gives a big equipment distinction between characters.
b) Rule #2 almost *almost* gets rid of the need for Rule #1. Let's look at who still gets the Shield spell + armor if Rule #2 exists but Rule #1 doesn't. I'm listing them in order of increasing concern:
1. Battlesmith and Artilerist artificers. I'm completely fine with this. These are not overpowered casters.
2. Arcane Tricksters. Frankly, if they're taking Shield, they aren't taking Find Familiar, which I consider more appropriate for them.
3. Eldritch Knight. EK subclass is almost "fighter with Shield spell", and they'd be choosing this ability over Battlemaster or Rune Knight, which are both probably better. Yes, their AC becomes incredible, but since it already plays like a martial and not a caster (as it should), this isn't a problem.
4. Bards (using Magical Secrets). Valor bards can get a very high AC for a casting class with this, but they're using up a 10th level class feature to do it. That's a pretty high opportunity cost, so its probably fine. The other subclasses aren't quite as problematic: Lore can get Shield earlier; Swords can get AC almost as high, but a Swords player probably wants to get mixed up in melee; the other subclasses aren't an issue at all -- the opportunity cost is way too high for the benefit.
5. Bladesinger wizard. Now we're starting to get into some subclasses that are probably problematic. This guy can get a high AC on a casting class. On the other hand, the Bladesinger's whole schtick is that it is a wizard that can often have a good AC, so it may not be quite as big an issue? I don't know.
6. Hexblade warlock. Implementing Rule#2 without Rule#1 makes Hexblade more desirable, as if it really needed the bump. On the plus side, they'd have to use one of their precious pact slots to cast it, so Sorlocks couldn't use their 1st level slots on it.
My verdict? I'd probably implement Rule #2 without #1, and just warn the table from the start that I may require the players to swap out Shield if it looks like it still warps the game. The Weave is fickle, you know.
Oh, and I'm definitely implementing Rules #2 and #3. I really like those.
You can also just ban multi classing. Thats what I want to do but worried my players may be too against it. No class will be a dip class if you do this and character have more solidified identity without multi classing to me.
@@theeye8276 I'm not a fan of multiclassing either, but I'd also be a fool to not acknowledge that a huge amount of what depth there is in 5e comes in the form of multiclassing, and as such removing it entirely would probably be bad for the game. A houserule to limit the worst excesses of multiclassing is good for balance, while minimally reducing player options and creativity.
@@watcher314159 I can see that. Alot of the depth I feel comes from people putting too much of a emphasis on flavor. Like I know a player who wanted to take a three level swashbuckler rogue dip because he wanted to be a swashbuckler es character. In my mind this was completely unnecessary, he could of just flavored his fighter to be more swashbuckler like instead of taking 3 levels for purely flavor reasons.
@@theeye8276 That is a problem. But I specifically mean mechanical depth. One of my favorite exercises for getting comfortable with reflavouring everything and exploring the mechanical depth offered by multiclassing is doing Xless X builds. So for example a Monkless Monk might be a Barbarian/Paladin/Fighter or Hexsorcadin. Or a Rangerless Ranger might be a Fighter/Rogue/Druid. It's a great way to overcome a whole bunch of conceptual hurdles.
@@watcher314159 that does have some interest.
I feel like rogue's damage is getting way smaller after those changes. Lack of extra attack makes a larger difference, because it's one less potential +10. Also, rogues are desperate to hit with their limited number of attacks to deliver sneak attack, making -5 more painful.
It also makes TWF even more subpar unless you homebrew TWF even more to meet it
Yeah, this becomes essentially free 5th level sneak attack (3d6 is 10.5 on average) to all martial classes. Would love to hear if Chris has had much experience with rogues using this rule and how they have handled this.
@@reedsmith8975 This math is wrong. You have to factor in the -5 to hit, which changes the whole attack's expected value.
@@hawkname1234 Not really. Every other martial class (and some full spellcasters) gets extra attack at 5th level, which is better than advantage, and advantage is generally considered a +5 as a rule of thumb. I was factoring that in, but didn’t want to have a super long comment.
The plus 5 by rule of thumb is just a bad simplification. It all depends on what the AC of the creature is. I use to use the same thing but had to abandon it because it can be really misleading. That being said without the -5 rouges would be better at targeting higher AC and I think that fits the thematic decision
Three homebrew options that fit the simplicity spirit of 5, while reigning back in the dramatic effectiveness of the multiclass. Glad to see some martial class boosts as well and while I am currently running an adventure for an all martial cast (Ranger, Fighter, Monk, Rogue), giving them another tactical option when making their attack action.
Thank you Chris for sharing your years worth of research with us!
This is really interesting! I like how the first two rules allow for straight class warlocks/bards that can ignore the moderately armored feat. Also the last rule doesn’t lock a martial character into Vuman/Custom lineage
I have a gigantic word document of house ruled class changes, subclass tweaks and new rules. I have implemented exactly 2 of them (Giving Monks a 13th level feature and adding spells to arcane archer) because they're such a PITA for people to remember
Care to share the doc?
I did a whole video series on the "Treantmonk variant" which was a massive set of house rules. I then playtested them and abandoned them because keeping track of that many was simply not possible, and looking them up all the time was a pain.
So true. So many hours of writing new rules, and I use like, 3-5 per campaign. But, it's nice to have them to turn to in case a new group is down for any of them.
Can you share it please?
Share it with us mortals, please!
Hmm, it's interesting, I really don't see most of these as problems. Like, everything you mentioned as possible comes with it's own downsides. Shield is a resource and a reaction, level dips slow progression, feats aren't free, crossbows require more feats than bows to use well, two handed weapons cost you ac, etc.
Like, maybe it's just the groups I'm playing in, but these definitely weren't houserules I would have thought of. Interesting though, and I do wonder what it would be like to play with them.
I have to agree, shield has never been an issue for me, even when I am playing a caster I can go whole sessions without using shield because I only have 4 first level spell slots and I use them for other things right? Or I want to use my reaction for something else
@@esgeir9499 Well this is exactly my thought, at low levels the spell slot is too valuable, and at higher levels the reaction is too valuable. Not that it's not still a good spell, but not ubiquitous in my campaigns at all.
@@tomgymer7719 not to mention that, outside of optimizing scenarios, where your wizard somehow is in plate armor AND has a magic shield so their normal AC is already 20+, the +5 AC isn't anywhere near as valuable. most wizards that i can think of won't typically get more than like a 16ac. so the +5 only brings them to a 21, which is high, but a martial with plate armor can have that permanently, without needing magic items.
Yeah, no, me neither. It's so weird hearing these things, maybe it's because I don't play with optimizers
The most popular "downside-less dip" is Artificer 1 Wizard X. Gets you light armor, medium armor, shields, all simple weapons, and Con/Int saving throws-plus a few fantastic spells and cantrips (like Guidance) not otherwise available to wizards.
The cost of it is that you lose out on Signature Spells (if you go to 20), and your class features and spells are delayed by one level. However, your spell *slot* progression isn't delayed due to the Artificer's unique spellcasting progression, so you still have the same spell slots available as a straight-classed wizard.
They sound so wierd at first, but the more I think about them the more I like them. I don't think I'd use them as I really don't like nerfing and banning stuff, but I can definitely see how they would make the game more balanced with a party of optimizers.
Definitely food for thought whenever I get to DM again
I would never implement them on an ongoing campaign but for starting one. I will probably try them.
Yeah I would try them in a one-shot first and see how they turn out. Honestly seems good just to see what kind of new builds it brings up
Haven't finished, but I already reckon I'll like it. You have the best grasp of 5e mechanics of anyone here on UA-cam, that I'm aware of Chris.
This really addresses most of the issues with the caster/martial disparity
I can attest to the first part of this video. In my early days of homebrewing rules, I definitely got overzealous with them which led to a lot of bookkeeping and confusion for everyone at the table. Important lessons were learned in those early days.
These are great, and I love how elegant and straightforward they are relative to the issues they address.
I ran this by my group and we love them, with one caveat. The shield spell can be used only if unarmored and not carrying a shield.
This may be the cynic in me, but that makes my mind just leap to a bunch of Monks with a Wizard dip, combining Patient Defense with Shield to become untouchable. Honestly though, Monks kinda need the boost anyway, so that wouldn't even bother me.
Did 5e do away with ac bonus types? I haven't played dnd since 3.5 (switched to Pathfinder), but back then, shield wouldn't stack with a physical shield because they were both shield bonuses
@@stephenchurch1784 5E does not have armor types. That said, sources either give you an AC or a bonus to AC. For example, you can not wear a breast plate and still get AC from your scales. Plenty of things give an AC bonus and they can stack. Shield, defensive fighting style, etc.
@@stephensahl7669 sounds like it achieves a similar effect but with less bookkeeping. I like it
This is fantastic i love all of these.
I watch a bunch of DnD youtubers and i find Treatmonk to be a step above the others.
His suggestions and points are so methodical and thought out, and his audio is always stress-free with no needless music or bombastic sound effects.
Thanks mate
That last house rule is so huge. As a player and a DM who likes to make characters that fit a concept but often feels stifled by the options of Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter, it opens such a new range of characters that can hold their own.
My favourite house rules are simple things that are easy to remember, and reduce rule checking.
Glancing blows stands out to me, where you deal/take half damage when you meet an AC/DC
It reduces people checking if it hits or works, and reduces the disappointment of missing by 1
But doesn't that make your hits worse? As you usually hit when you meet an AC
@@kegkog3 yes you are right. This strictly weakens attacks for flavour.
@@kegkog3 But also means enemies also do half damage to you instead of doing full on exact hit.
Mostly a nerd for martials if anything. But if it's enjoyable, hey
@@kegkog3 it makes everyone's attacks slightly weaker, yes. Applies to players and enemies though, so it's balanced and I personally have monsters with glancing blow AC ranges, making them easy to hit for half damage, and hard to hit for full.
But that adds complication.
My homebrew/houserule: all martials without spellcasting are full battlemasters. Full stop. You'd be shocked how much it doesn't break the game and how exciting it makes martials. Depending on how strong the subclass is for Rangers I may give them a feat or a couple superiority die. Paladins don't need anything. haha
Edit: Just to clarify, I mean that all base classes that don't get access to spellcasting get this. So Fighters, Barbarians, Rogues, and Monks all get maneuvers/superiority die in their base class. Paladins and Rangers do not. So as a commentor questioned, Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters get access as well. I'm sure there is more that needs to be clarified but this is a UA-cam comment and it's house rules so make your own! 😁
I've actually thought of doing this too. Nice.
Love this idea. In the development of 5e that is how all fighters were!
@@czcrossman Yeah I've heard that one before. That would've been so much more interesting, might've actually played one in that case!
I don’t think it breaks Monks, Rouges, or Barbarians to hand it to them as well. They all struggle to keep up with spellcasters. This narrows that gap.
Echo Knights and Rune Knights become pretty insane since they were already great, but just balance encounters around the new power level and it's all good. 🤷♂️
Do you get to be a double battle master if you already are a battle master?
@@zhangbill1194 Never ran into that situation since once people have those BM goodies I find they want something else to really express themselves. 😊
Nice suggestions, Chris! I remember from the early versions of D&D that magic users could not cast spells when wearing any armor at all.
Good video. I still think wizards & eldrich knights should get the shield spell. Could just say no to the multiclassing option. (The shield spell could raise your AC to 18 or 20; not much casting it if it’s already your AC). I like the damage bonus not being tied to certain weapons & feats.
Not a bad suggestion.... I'd keep the +5, but put a max. ceiling of 20 on the AC when using Shield.
This video is the best D&D balance patch.
My campaigns never get far enough for these rules to matter.
My favourite shield fix is that it adds 5, but only up to a max of 20. Usually works perfectly with casters but makes it much less useful for breaking bounded accuracy
Another good alternative is add spellcasting modifier. Less op at lower levels, and forces more MADness on people taking dips
Love the armor dipping fix. Really makes the game much better
The single house rule that we use is flanking gives +1 to attack rolls. Every group I played accepted the rule and we've always enjoyed the minor buff that comes together with more dynamicity in combats.
I like this too, I think advantage from flanking cheapens advantage from class features and situations too much. Why reckless attack if you can just flank.
This is the only flanking rule that makes sense (besides no rules for flanking). With bounded accuracy a +2 bonus is too much, and of course giving advantage is a horrible idea - that nullifies so many class features and condition effects that I am disappointed the DM guide even has it listed as an option.
@@Prismatic_Rain Is a +2 really too much for the situation? I mean, if someone is fending off attacks from the front and rear, outnumbered by two or more foes who aren't themselves threatened by any hostile creatures, a +2 seems almost *underwhelming*
You could also use 1st Edition rules:
Side Flank +2 to hit. Target can only use shield if you're attacking on the side they're holding the shield.
Rear Flank +4 to hit. Target cannot use shield. Target does not get DEX bonus to AC.
Limit engaged characters from freely sweeping around enemies and getting behind them (ie: limit the move to a 5' adjustment/turn around the enemy while staying engaged, otherwise provoke a opportunity attack).
More miniature wargamey, but makes using allies and terrain to protect flanks more tactically important.
@@WhamBamTySam it's not. I will post on reddit in the next days how a stupid +2 increased in 40% the damage output of a PC in retrospective analysis. Of course, depends on the build.
Silvery Barbs kind of solved the shield spell problem by being an even more powerful option 😬
Silvery Barbs is not stronger than Shield.
Silvery Barbs works for *one* disadvantage roll and *one* advantage roll. Sure, you can cause a monster to miss *one* attack, but what if it has multi-attack? Or if you're fighting more than one monster?
Shield on the other is going to give you +5 for an *entire round*, against multiple monsters beating on you with multiple attacks.
@@orly444You misunderstand. You typically don't use silvery barbs against attack. Silvery Barbs is used to do things like forcing a creature to fail a save-or-suck spell.
I feel like this buffs bladesinger relative other wizard spell classes, because they can still get a decent AC bonus, even without shield, especially at higher levels. I'm not mad about that.
Yeah. I generally liked the rules, but think they widen the gap between Hexblade/Bladesinger and other classes/subclasses, which is bad.
@@nob7094 well, bladesinger, while great is not the best subclass, and this does not change that, but yes, for hexblade this does widen the gap.
Hands down my favorite video you've ever made Chris. I really appreciate the amount of thought and testing put into these.
Wow, thanks!
Well said, I think I agree.
I think these changes are super interesting and am definitely going to play test them in my games!
My main curiosity with option one is the fact that I have personally interpreted the high AC of casters via shield as an incentive to attack the martials instead of the casters. The lower AC of martials incentivizes me as a DM to attack the martials and dig into their higher health pools. If the the martials ALSO have a high AC, it means that I as a DM am not as incentivized to attack them so I often see my martials not going for this. However, all the above information could just be specific to my players, I definitely see this thematically being lovely and being a mechanically interesting option to put more pressure on the incredibly powerful wizards and sorcerers.
Change 2 I have no immediate thoughts on. It seems very interesting and would like to give it a try!
Change 3 is beautiful. Fantastic, absolutely no complaints. Please buff martials more.
Your changes are DEFINITELY very intriguing and would love to give them a shot! Another great video 😁
I have not tested these rules in DnD 5E but I have played in multiple other game systems where casters don't get armor so I can answer your first question:
Yes monsters / the dm are going to want to attack the casters more. They will naturally see wizards as being both dangerous and see no armor and want to rush them down if possible. This will be a positive change for your game though for multiple reasons. For one tactics become more important and interesting, casters will want to stay back when possible martials will want to position themselves between the monsters and casters. Spell that allow casters to escape or create barriers or difficult terrain are better.
Also teamwork will become more important and martials will have more responsibility and significance than ever as their job is no longer just to try and do as much damage as possible but to actively protect the casters and do damage. Shoving tripping grappling as well any ability that allows interception or causes disadvantage if another target is attacked are much more relevant if they can prevent the caster from taking a single hit while concentrating. Archers and rogues will want to single out any opponent that breaks the line and gets next to the wizard or warlock.
Lastly there will be more tension and stakes for the casters. The wizard will be rightly nervous or panicking if there's an ogre 5 feet away from them or 4 goblins surrounding them and they can't just shield and be invulnerable for a round as a reaction. So overall these are all good things that were think will make the game more interesting than not.
Change 3 isn't really a buff. It just prevents you from nerfing your martial just because you want to play it a certain way.
Lol, you haven't played with me, if I'm playing a martial, they have the shield spell.
@@TreantmonksTemple yes you do and thats why YOU need these houserules.
You have a optimization channel and are playing with your patrons (who obviously love optimising as well), so you need stuff to keep multiclasses and min maxed PCs in check.
Saying this stuff is needed to "Fix DnDs biggest Problems" is really over the top.
I like your channel and love listening to your opinions.
But many of the "problems" you are talking about in this video are only because you and your table will take shield on every martial or dip into other classes when its not on your classes spell list.
Same for the Heavy Armor on every caster, thats a self made problem.
So the "big stuff" you are talking about only aplies to tables like yours (which is fine, power to you for liking this aspect of the game) and should not be taken at face value by everyone watching this video.
So people if you watch this and want to use all the rules because they will "fix" your game, think if any of these are even a factor at the moment.
Except rule 3 I will def. steal that one.
@@TreantmonksTemple fair enough lmaooooo
Those are very interesting rules. Very elegant in their simplicity, definitely creates a whole different set of more oldschool builds.
Glad you like them!
Thanks for the suggestions, I'll discuss them with our group.
Interesting, the two first problems are mostly created by multiclassing. I would never consider banning multiclassing, but playing with groups that do not allow them, showed me that actually it's possible to have more diversity with less options.
All in all, these three house rules makes multiclassing less optimal and thus lets you stick to your main class without losing out in optimization, and martials get the boost they need. I like it.
When I heard about your 3-rd house rule I suddenly realised, that for months almost all my optimised martial builds revolved around GWM, so I subconciously avoided every other option as inferior. The 1-st and 2-nd rules imo should be implemented if your players have similar playstyles (like all roleplayers or all optimisers etc.) In the games that I play, I am usually the only optimiser, so after a couple of sessions I become the target for DM (also because I don't get mad about my character getting focused, killed and having to create a new one), I build martials- I receive 200-300 damage every battle (at lvl 9-12) and usually end the battle with multiple instances of getting to 0 hp and back again (I kid you not, my Half-ork Barbarian had to take 30 difficulty Relentless Rage check), I build spellcasters and suddenly all my lvl 3-4 spellslots are used to counter PW Kill.
And I don't "play to win at D&D", I just like building optimised characters and roleplaying around the optimisation. What I mean is, your character should be focused no more no less than others, otherwise you will die every combat almost certainly. So taking defensive options from a "squishy" character rubs me the wrong way.
Though I must say, I totally agree with your 1-st and 2-nd rules in the situations you have described.
You should take a look at your games and decide for yourself, how strong do you think casters are and how strong they should be.
I think we currently operate 3 house rules:
1) Potions as a bonus action (self)
2) DM-rolled death saves
3) Wild magic surge when counterspelling a counterspell
(1) helps potions enter combat, (2) introduces more jeopardy when characters down, and (3) was for shits and giggles.
I love it, im gonna use those rules for sure. Especially the third rule, which is a nice way to remove the funnel of all/most optimized fighter build into GWM and SS. I wonder how this would do with your dual wield rework
I thought about that, and I wouldn't advise it. Adding more attacks to the attack action (which my houserule does) could present issues with the 3rd rule. I haven't tried them together though. The TWF video was just me brainstorming, these ones I've tried extensively.
@@TreantmonksTemple I listened to the 3rd option twice and I'm still confused about why you think the 3rd option would open up players to more creative uses of their bonus action.
@@NegatveSpace I think it's because, since most optimized martial builds get either SS or GWM, they are pressured to apply it on their bonus action as well to get maximum value (via either CBE, PM, and in some instances GWM). Making it action only relieves this pressure from perfect action economy optimizing in only 1 way and makes a more diverse set of BAs become the optimal thing.
Of the three problems you say are solved by your house rules, I was only partially aware of the shield spell problem... All this kind of blows my mind.
One immediate side effect I see to rule number two is that multiclassing actually becomes a detriment. Example: I'm playing a sorcerer/paladin and if I want to cast any of my sorcerer spells I need to basically dump my armor on the ground. You've basically soft banned many multiclass combos.
I think that's a good thing. sorc/paladin is still possible and can achieve decent armor with mage armor, and still sometimes wield a shield when it is not casting a spell. You can still get 2 levels for smites, turn sorc spellslots to sorcery points to use those spellslots. But anyone who wants to get the benefit of high spells cant get the benefit of full armor which fixes the meta of boring martial dips on every caster just for armor.
He pretty much spells out in the video that multiclassing is a problem. Wizards clanking around in heavy armour and carrying shields. I went for a 2 level fighter dip for my STR7 bard which is ridiculous. Action Surge on top of that armour proficiency is pretty broken and I kind of regret that silliness even though it is very effective.
I see this approach as being like this: some spells are designed to fit with certain fighting styles. Paladins and Eldritch Knights learn simple spells that have been designed or modified with the confines of armour in mind, whatever detriment that imposes. (The metal shorts out the magic, is too hot and sweaty, restricts movement etc). But a Wizard School spell is designed to be cast in a comfortable wizard's tower or from behind a wall of armoured, musclebound oafs.
@@TroySpace
I thought there was a minimum strength requirement to multiclass into fighter.
@@coranbaker6401 or DEX, which is rarely dumped.
@@TroySpace
Oh right, I forgot it was either-or. Wouldn't work for my Storm Sorcerer though since he's stuck with 12 Strength and 10 Dex. XD.
Thank you for session 0 recommendations. "Better or more complicated" is a key quote. The focus on fun is inspiration for me
Absolutely!
While I disagree the game is “better” with these house rules, I certainly appreciate the different perceptive. I have seen the shield spell used to great effect, but never would call it game breaking. As someone who has played a fighter with Defensive Duelist, I did have a slight advantage to the sorcerer in my party: my feat didn’t cost a spell slot. Both have their pros and cons, I just feel martial classes don’t get the credit they deserve because they aren’t as flashy as their magical counterparts. And that’s honestly how I view most spell casters in the game. Great and powerful in bursts, but once the spell slots are out they’re just stuck with cantrips.
Though is true, I've never played in a game where spell slots were limited on a regular basis. On a typical adventuring day I'm looking for opportunities to burn slots, not the other way around
@@trombonegamer14 In my experience also. The game was designed with more encounters per day than we typically see. But these days most people tend to prefer 1-2 encounters per day and to actually have a plot that advances, rather than being bogged down by lots and lots of combat. This does tend to break the 'spell economy' aspect of the game, especially at high level.
I mean, to burn all the spell slots of a high level wizard, how many rounds of combat does the game expect us to have to have until the wizard starts actually running out? Who wants to play that many rounds of combat every adventuring day?
At low level it works, because with only 3 slots, a 2nd level wizard has to ration those slots carefully.
It's not about what's game breaking, it's about what's game improving
I think if you played with a lot of optimizers you would see a dramatic increase to their natural Ac making them get something like 20 and then goes all the way to 25 with shield
Defensive Duelist only works against one attack. It is bad. You're meager +3 to AC at lvl 1 against one attack is never going to outdo the shield spell.
Videos like this make me really happy I don't have power gamers at my table.
I notice you simply brushed over the "no, there's no trail of dead wizards" bit during your video. I find myself curious. How do unarmored spellcasters at your table defend themselves when the game's primary defensive spell is gone, AND they're not permitted to wear or use defensive equipment? Mage Armor may have entered the chat, but its presence in chat doesn't mean it's less of a crappy meme, and a tableful of 'optimancers' would never permit lower-AC characters to use or wear items such as Rings/Cloaks of Protection when they could give those things to the 24AC paladin instead. How have your spellcasters managed to survive given the fact that no DM alive doesn't immediately send their biggest threats straight at the squishy casters in the back and completely ignore any martials that happen to be standing in the way?
I mean, mage armor does get used a lot now, but there is definitely no way to have your Wizard have as good an AC as fighter in plate and shield anymore. My players have dealt with this by changing their tactics (and there was a learning curve after some close calls). More higher level defensive spells like mirror image and blink get used. Primarily though I've found lower AC characters will take a more cautious tactical approach in combat.
@@TreantmonksTemple Fair enough, and thank you for taking a moment to answer. My table is unsure of these rules, as we don't generally optimize so hard to _need_ the corrective measures these rules apply, but it provoked several hours of interesting (if occasionally heated) discussion yesterday. Good takeaway.
@@yurei8368 I'm very late here, and new to DM'ing, but as I'm gearing up for my first one-shot I feel like my fresh beginner mindset needs some clarity as well.
Why are you metagaming your npc in every encounter to automatically attack the squishy targets? Leaping passed the martials..? Maybe given a very intelligent enemy with previous knowledge of the PCs, then they would know who is more dangerous than others, but I don't see why you would make that statement. Imo, a DM shouldn't be thinking anything like "I need to attack the casters." We should be thinking how the npc would be thinking.
P.S. I mean no disrespect with the word metagaming. It is what it is, a DMs job is to metagame, but we need to do it from the perspective of the npc, not our own
@@chillynewberg2652 In most DnD settings adventurers are fairly well known (at least as an idea), so even goblins would know that arcane casters are glass cannons.
Protecting the mage is one of the challenges of running a party. 5E has leveled the playing field between everyone, and that's silly as hell. A bookworm should not be as hard to hurt as a fighter. This whole "but it doesn't feel fair" mentality is cancer.
i am a big fan of your house rules and will discuss them the next time we are playing. thank you for all your work, really enjoy watching almost all of your videos
I do like these rules, for simplicities sake, and can see the purpose behind the first two.
But personally, I haven't seen Sword/Shield as a bad option for martials beforehand. That Shield bonus does a lot, especially if you can get a magic shield with a + Bonus
Another house rule I've considered is Inverting the rules for Attacks of Opportunity.
"If a creature begins and ends their turn within reach of your weapon, you may use your Reaction to make an Attack of Opportunity against them"
This is to keep characters and creatures moving around during the battle, trying to move in ways that corner opponents, and encouraging the use of control spells and tools to immobilize opponents
Overall, to make for more dynamic encounters. Players should also consider ways to use their environment to corner opponents and to get themselves out of a corner
I like the opportunity attack idea however it would make feats like sentinel and polearm master and the class Cavalier a little wonky. Because sentinel is whenever you get hit by an oa they can't move setting up an endless loop of oa's. And polearm is whenever you enter reach. Still a neat idea though
the opportunity rule change sounds good on paper but ingame it'd be kind of a mess for the DM I Imagine. Having to move all of your monsters, the backline having no protection from you standing in the way of enemies.
@@chatyxd6078 True, it does have a couple odd implications for Cavalier's "Hold the Line" and Sentinel
In the case of Hold the Line; It means that Cavalier Fighters can additionally get Opportunity Attacks against enemies moving through your reach
- Still costs a reaction though, so while I think this feature is a bit more strong now, it's not exactly busted
_ ______ _
As for Sentinel; this shouldn't actually cause a loop with the way it was worded
"When you hit a creature with an opportunity attack, the creature's speed becomes 0 for the rest of the turn"
Because the opportunity attack with the proposed change is triggered when a creature ends their turn still in your reach, the speed reduction is actually irrelevant
(This does make the feat a bit weaker, so it may be worth making the feat a bit better, or just not worry about it. People may still want the feat to deny disengages or punish enemies trying to attack friends)
_ ______ _
And on the topic of Polearm Master, I don't see this as particularly stronger than it already was beforehand 🤔
When all three are combined, the character is certainly good at getting a single target locked in one place and vulnerable to allies. But IMO, thats a good thing. I don't mind making this build stronger.
Note: I would be hesitant to allow the UA Tunnel Fighter fighting style though. But this was already an abusable UA to keep a close eye on
Overall, I don't think any other modifications are needed to make Inverting the Op Attacks a houserule
@@dolerbom I don't think it's too much to manage. But as a DM I usually use smaller target encounters and/or move enemies as groups
Maybe it depends on the DM and their style, but I personally like moving the monsters around the board as they do their actions
*The Dragon lifts from the ground circling overhead as a column of fiery breath engulfing those it passes over before ultimately landing over here at other side of the ravine. Those beneath the dragons path please make me a dexterity save*
_ __________ _
As for the backline lacking protection from you standing in the way. That just means the frontline and backline have to consider other ways to play keep-away
Consider as well what this is being compared to; With the usual mechanics for Op Attacks, it is rarely viable to retreat or navigate around enemies. Tokens on the board regularly glue their pieces together until they get KO'd
_ _________ _
Both have pros and cons, sure. But I think mechanics that encourage players and monsters to move around will make both the environment the fight takes place in and tools the system provides more engaging IMO
_ _________ _
In any case, If the players are struggling to adapt strategies, then you can course correct and use fewer mobs or play them less tactically. Considering CRs are a poor way to judge difficulty anyway, this isn't different from normal DM
I can already hear the, "But my table doesn't optimize like that."
Mind you, these are the same people who will argue sports rules for a sport they've never played.
Heavily disagree with the shield spell ban.
Shield is a spell to accomidate the issue that most enemies of a given level can 1 hit wizards, sorcerers and warlocks.
Especially if you are saying they cannot take heavier armor (which ive honestly never seen anyone do).
The shield spell is essentially mandatory because there is no effective way for frontline PCs to prevent enemies circumventing them and just 'geeking the mage' as the saying goes.
its weird seeing the shield spell banned partly because its moot if the attack roll exceeds the max ac with the shield. you still get hit and it's resource burning at the same time. there were a few instances where even if I did have the op to use shield I wont take it because the roll exceeds the max ac with shield
Silvery barbs can be a fairly decent early game shield replacement now
I do think the Shield spell appears to be broken because too many DMs don’t require you to have a free hand to cast it, when the rules say you should. You only get one item interaction per round, and you can’t even doff a shield without an action. So your choices are to use your item interaction to keep sheathing your weapon, and then only have Shield open every other round, take the War Caster feat to stack a shield on Shield spell, or just have one hand free, which is great - more people leaving a free hand is something I want in my games.
This also solves the problem with wizards having shields, if we require wizards to hold spell component pouches and focuses in one hand, and also a free hand for spells that don’t require material components. So wizards might wear armor, but not shields.
These are great house rules when you DM optimizers (as mentioned in the video). Luckily, I don't have to worry about that. My three groups hardly even think much about D&D outside of game night.
The house rule I’d like to try is inspired by ICRPG: Non-combat tasks get effort points, parallel to hit points in combat. You also have work dice, parallel to damage dice, (based on you total bonus).
The idea is to open up non-combat tasks to a bit more progressive action. Creating more chance to mechanically represent things like working faster (increase work dice) at increased risk of complications. I imagine scenes like the rogue picking a lock while the brawn keeps the foes at bay, which would need several rolls/rounds to do the work, and allowing a choice or trade off between slow and steady or rushing with potential to finish fast but also fail hard.
(Other than that I’d also like more or even all magic to require a d20 roll with the chance of a failure. And I like the DMG gritty option: 8 hour short rest, 7 day long rest.)
I think that there is an important distinction to be made when talking about house rules.
In my experience house rules that bloat the game and make it harder to run are those that change the core of rules. Things like changing the way grappling or attunement works are difficult to keep track of because they are so fundamental that they aren't usually referenced during the game.
On the other hand, changes to specific spells or abilities have never caused me or my players any technical issues (although it's still important to make sure that the change does not cause further mechanical problems). That's because they usually are referenced during play and (almost) nobody knows them by heart, so modifying the rules text on one's character sheet doesn't lead to confusion.
Brilliant! Most eloquent due to its simplicity. ...and proven valid by extended testing.
But... I love Shield-spell. AC tanking bladesinger is my bliss. Don't take my bliss. Grapple me, knock me prone, hit me with save spells, but don't take my bliss :'(
I like rule 2 & 3 though. Might replace rule 1 with crits do max damage of a regular hit + rolled dice instead.
I love these rules, I think I will implement them in my games.
My personal house rule: Hexblades only exist as a straight class, no multiclassing in or out.
A lot of #1 and #2 seems to me to be fixing "issues" that only exist in stuff like Adventures League and the like that are more about playing a game than playing a character. Which, sure, some people do play like this, but I definitely don't see this at my table. *Maybe* #3, mostly for the 1h-weapon users and the monks out there. I'd probably instead make everyone a Battlemaster though, since that not only buffs martials, but more importantly *gives them* ***options*** that they can use in combat. #3 numerically works, but doesnt help any of the issues that people bring up with martials saying "I attack" 2+ times and passing their turn.
I've never played Adventurer's League.
Outstanding contribution to the game - well done and thank you. (I also really like your two-weapon fighting hack too.)
I think rule #3 works but it covers over the root problem that there are too many bonuses that diminishes the dice: e.g. it makes for hit points being too high when compared to weapon damage (dice) This leads to weapon uses needing a +10 to damage to be effective; and diminishes bounded accuracy.
Alternate Rule #3 - when you take the attack action, you can choose to use your PB on your attack roll to hit (default) .... or use it for extra damage. You must declare before rolling. The damage you can add to your roll is seen on the following table.
PB. Extra damage die
-----------------------------------
2. d4
3. d6
4. d8
5. d10
6. d12
That sounds pretty cool. I've seen quite a few comments about adding dice instead of a set amount.
My group has a house rule where a nat 1 melee attack opens the attacker up for an attack of opportunity for the person they attacked, aka a fumble. This has never been an issue at the table and it's cause a lot of awesome moments.
Lucky hobbits! They must love your table.
We had critical fails at my table for a while and it did create some fun moments (there are some great mobile apps with creative random effects when someone rolls a 1), but when we got to high level and people started having 3+ attacks a turn it felt like nearly every turn someone or even several people would crit fail. It ended up slowing the game down and worse than that it didn't feel right that the stronger the characters got the more chance they'd drop their weapon or hit their comrade so we ended up removing the rule. I did consider reducing the chance of it happening (if you roll a 1, then roll again and if you roll less than 10, then as they got higher less than 5 etc.) but it just meant every turn was taking longer and longer. Shame as it can create some awesome moments as you say
I've been working on a massive homebrew on DnD recently which includes a rework of martial combat as a whole (among a LOT of other things). One of the rules I tried was exactly that of providing the -5, +10 to all attacks as a built in ability. The way I balanced the issue of smaller weapons becoming too strong was simply to change the rule into:
"You can take a -5 to the attack roll, to double the damage dice of the attack. "
This generally worked really well for my homebrew due to several reasons, but I really do think it's fairly balanced. It is obviously much less powerful than the +10 to damage, but to be fair...the +10 is a bit too strong anyway. (The doubling of the dice also works as a double double on critical hits by the way, which is really cool and almost always ensures good numbers on a critical hit).
Pretty cool idea!
I bet your rogue does hella damage😂
I have 2 DM's. Neither of them declare their attack roll totals, they simply state whether the attack hits or not. That makes the shield spell a gamble that doesn't always work and it helps balance the spell. Unfortunately it creates other problems with many features that affect dice rolls but must be used after the dice is rolled but before the outcome is determined. In those cases you again have to gamble and state you are using it before the DM declares the result. Another note I think reactions are cool in concept for the players but are mostly annoying for DM's and slows down gameplay.
We do something similar. Broad strokes of the rule: if you can so something after learning the roll or results, that implies some kind of prophetic, fate altering, or time manipulation mechanic is in play. If those aren't in play, then you don't get to mess with the dice or their results after they're rolled.
Exception, we add the ability to do it to those horrible "look at a creature and learn if one of its parameters is better or worse than yours" features, since you become intimately aware of what a good or bad effort on their target's part looks like, makes that ability not a disappointment, and makes scoping out a dangerous target more important.
The only issue with that is that Shield is still a safe thing to pop if you're about to get attacked by multiple monsters and makes almost all the one-attack defensive reactions near useless.
I used a similar approach when I was running GURPS, simplifying most rules into the first two house rules, and then a small benefit from the third house rule which focused character creation to the campaign theme. I enjoy these meta advice videos.
Limiting to 3 rules only, I would have buffed two-weapon fighting instead of banning the shield spell.
Arguably TWF is buffed by the one handed buff though. I thought the reason it was always so poor is that it couldn't compete with GWF. With GWF nerfed, doesn't it become a viable option again?
Better than just buffing TWF, rule 3 makes it almost too good. 5e has a lot of ways to add damage to every attack you make (look at Hex, Rage, and Hunter's Mark as the classic examples) and they're balanced in relation to the fighting styles. Dual wielders get more use out of effects like those, as well as Divine Smite and similar resource-based nova damage, because they're getting more attacks. Now they can ALSO get the one thing that kept two-handed fighting ahead, AND they get more use out of it, because they always get one more attack than someone not dual-wielding (so an extra 10 damage every turn). I find it funny that the optimization community has given up on dual-wielding for so long, they can make it overpowered and not even realize.
@@MyRegularNameWasTaken The rule doesn't apply on a bonus action though.
@@MyRegularNameWasTaken
Actually no, it doesn't work on the bonus action attack. Maybe you should reread those rules again cause it looks like you might have missed a thing or two.
Chris your 3rd house rule is excellent! Most martial classes that don't use GWM/SS fall so far behind. I love it! Cheers!
There’s one that I’ve been mulling over in my head but have had no time to test yet. It’s specific to warlocks, but I’m a bit of a warlock mark, so whatever. You know that text in Hexblade that allows you to use charisma in weapon attacks and damage? Copy that and paste it into Pact of the Blade. I’ve been wanting to see a weapon using fiend or genie warlock forever, but it’s way too much of a stretch on ability scores to justify. This would take eyes off the Hexblade (something that I think NEEDS to happen) and give the other warlock subclasses some more options. Hexblade already has medium armor and shields as well as Hexblade curse. That should be enough.
I've played quite a bit with that exact house rule. It certainly works fine, though I don't think it ends up having a dramatic impact. Pact of the Blade warlocks certainly get played, but not extensively in my experience.
I think that medium armor and shields also have to go to Pact of the Blade. Hexblade Curse would be perfectly fine as a standalone lvl 1 subclass feature. You may tinker with the number of uses a bit if you think it would be underpowered.
@@antongrigoryev6381 This is precisely why when i played a PoB warlock I took a three level dip into fighter.
Well that and I wanted my warlock weapon to be a Maul (two handed)
@@peterberg3446 You don't need a dip for getting Maul as a Pact Weapon, no? You can get any weapon that isn't ranged (and even that restriction goes away with one of the Invocations), and you gain proficiency with any Pact Weapon.
@@antongrigoryev6381 there is an UA invocation (Eldritch Armor or something) that gives proficiency in armor to the pact of blade, but because of reasons it (and +2 and +3 variations of Improved Pact Weapon) is still an UA after Tashas and other new books. I really waited this invocations in Tasha, but good things just can't happen with non-hexblades.
I can understand the house rules piling up. Usually keep mine are as a supplement, or replace entire sections; such as a simplified exploration and resource management system, or Mr. Rhexx's magic item enchanting/pricing system.
Perfect thing to listen to on a Portland, Oregon snow walk!
I’ll join you across the river in Vancouver, WA.
Woo Portland wet foot club!
Wow, these were a lot more hardcore than I was expecting 👏👏👏
I have complete respect for your opinions and these houserules, you have a ton of playtesting time with them, but I cannot agree to the first two. I think removing shield is trying to fix a problem with the AC of martials being low by nerfing casters, and maybe that's a fair solution given the power of casting in 5e, but I think the problem is better solved through giving martials better ways to improve AC rather than dumping shield altogether. The second rule just doesn't make sense to me, because it feels like a direct nerf to multiclassing. Don't get me wrong, multiclassing can create powerful builds, but it comes with its own set of caveats and limitations that are already rather constricting in my experience. Maybe our game styles are just different, but I never feel like the solution in 5e is to nerf or remove content to maintain balance
I agree that buffing is better than nerfing when it comes to balance. But nerfing or, removing things from the game is much easier to do and much easier to remember. and simplicity is a big focus for this revision.
I think the real beauty of these houserules is in their simplicity. Sure, instead of removing the shield spell you could come up with an elaborate set of rules for increasing the AC of martial classes but that makes the game more complex and convoluted. The second rule does nerf some multiclass options, but lets be honest, most optimized builds take advantage of getting armor proficiency and spellcasting resulting in having the best of both worlds. The bottom line is while buffing rather than nerfing is the nicest thing to do, it’s not always the correct choice. Keeping things simple and straightforward should always be paramount even if that means a nerf rather than a buff.
Yea I don't get the second rule either. If you don't want people to benefit from multi classing then just house rule no multi classing. Even if you only specifically mind non-casters dipping 1 in to a caster level, just to get shield, then just house rule that this isn't allowed. It seems overkill to remove an entire spell that gives dedicated casters a good defensive spell, just to nerf this specific kind of multi classing.
It's a tough balance because boosts to AC get better the higher it is until enemies only hit you on a nat 20, at which point adding in more does nothing. IE: going from getting hit on a 3-20 to getting hit on a 4-20 still means that most attacks directed at you will hit, but going from getting hit on a 19-20 to only on a 20 negates half the hits you would otherwise be taking.
I'm not a 5e guy, I just find the discussions interesting, so take my opinion with a grain of salt, but would giving martials a "shield" reaction help here if you're sticking with a high-AC game? IIRC weapon + shield is the least viable weapon combination, so giving it a +3 AC (combining with the +2 from the shield itself to match the Shield spell) reaction for yourself or an adjacent ally could go a long way towards making a pure martial tank playstyle viable. While it's a strong reaction with no resource cost, the fact that it's locking you in to a weaker weapon setup and stopping you from making opportunity attacks makes it even out somewhat. Maybe also limit it to the Defense or Protection fighting style (either replacing or combining with the Protection-style feature), you may want to give other fighting styles special action options as well though.
I respect your take and sympathize with your concern, but this improves a lot with very few words.
The primary concern with balance in 5e rests on the shoulders of spellcasters, which enfeebles martial classes by comparison. We have two options there: buff martials or nerf spellcasters.
Judging from the sizeable benefit the party receives in creativity and theme as well as fair exchange, a single 1st level spell and class relevant armor casting are two very minor rules that do a lot to achieve homeostasis, especially when paired with the GWM rip on the third rule.
Those are minor nerfs that changes very little mechanically, ironically opens choice by eliminating the must-haves in optimization, and most importantly are minor and effective nerfs happening to classes that are at the furthest rightward tip of the power curve in 5e. The third rule is just a simple option buff for martials that push them further up.
The point of these rules were to be simple ✅ effective ✅ minor ✅ and add more experientially to the game than they remove ✅. Biases and discomforts with nerfs aside, with which I truly relate, I believe Chris achieved this and bettered the game because of it.
I've been using rule 3 for a while as "Attack Aggressively". I also allowed "Attack Defensively" for -5 to hit, +2 AC or +4 AC with a shield.
Sounds cool. Has it been working or does it make AC tanks more broken?
@@jelte3754 It does make tanks tankier but due to the accuracy debuff, the tank doesn't attribute to the victory much. They become unattractive to attack, don't hurt the foe, and become encouraged to take choke points.
I liked the handful of house rules my old DM had. Most of them applied at character creation or the beginning of the campaign.
1. Campaigns start at a minimum of level 5. This allows PCs to feel like heroes right from the start, and have more compelling backstories. It also allows most multiclass builds to be fully set up and good to go.
2. There has to be a story/in-universe reason for a multiclass build. It doesn't have to be a big, complicated reason. But it has to be more than "I dipped into fighter for action surge". Why did your character get that training?
3. You can only multiclass once. It doesn't matter if the build is dipping into just a few levels, or it's an even split. You can only have two classes in one PC, max. This just keeps things simple across the board.
4. Every PC starts with one magic item, approved by the DM. My DM figured since we start at least level 5, we'd have one by now, just like if we'd reached the same point in a campaign from level 1. It gave us one more way to customize our builds. (This was back in the days of Pathfinder. Not sure how well this last one works in 5e.)
Oh, and everyone got a free feat at level 1. This was just to encourage a couple players in our party to play anything other than human if they wanted, lol. They had a reputation of never playing other races because of that extra feat and we didn't want them to continue to feel obligated.
I like making the shield spell add the same AC as the level of spell used to cast it. Need a +8 to avoid that dragon bite? It’s gonna cost you an 8th level spell. I feel like this keeps up with level progression, and it keeps half casters and martials from getting crazy ac with it.
This makes Shield even more interesting if the DM only declares if the attack hit or miss, not the exact roll.
A great set of rules. I have been using rule 3 for a while but using the old Power Attack chassis and your proficiency bonus as the limits. This gives some advantages back to versatile and 2 handed weapons. If you don’t know power attack it works like this, you subtract up to your proficiency bonus from attack roll and then get the same bonus to damage if using 1H weapon, 1.5 x bonus if using a versatile weapon with both hands and then 2x bonus to damage if using 2H weapon.
I can't say I'm a fan of the first two changes as presented. They seem like straight nerfs to primary casters without giving them anything in return. I already feel that casters were significantly nerfed in 5e (compared to 3.5/Pathfinder) because of the excessive restrictions on concentration spells, but the ability to wear armor by dipping one level (with no arcane failure chance) somewhat made up for that. If you're going to restrict casters' ability to protect themselves with armor, then I feel you need to give them something to make up for it.
Yeah, I used to like layering defensive spells in older editions and it just doesn't work that well anymore. Stoneskin went from a great spell to garbage.
They are absolutely nerfs to the primary casters without providing anything in return. Though in my experience, casters were still king in 5e even with concentration mechanics, so my opinion was that further balancing was a good thing.
You really don't. Having squishy casters makes teamwork more important which is only good for the game. If your casters are actually squishy then tank builds are actually viable and valuable. It make cover, terrain, and battlefield features more important - again which is generally good for the game - not just for the rogue, but for casters to use to take shelter. 5e let casters cast a levelled spell every turn in combat, there has to be a trade-off for that to stop casters completely dominating the game.
@@TreantmonksTemple Removing Shield is also trashing Eldritch Knight and really nothing in return.
@@agilemind6241 the trade-off is that many of the leveled spells are significantly worse than they were in 3.5/Pathfinder because they now require concentration. Spells like Stoneskin, Fly, and Haste (just to name a few) were heavily nerfed in 5e by adding the concentration requirement, and I always viewed the ability to be an armored caster as a compensation for that. And it's not like it's free! You still have to take a level dip, which sets your spellcasting progression behind for the whole campaign. I'd be happy to give up Shield and armor if you give me those spells back without concentration :)
Rule of Shield Spell can be fixed easy enough: Gives 1 AC / caster level, up to 5. This means it's only questionably useful for dip, but still serves its purpose for casters intended to have it.
Rule 2 is pretty reasonable, but I would still provide for racial proficiency.
3 is really interesting. I'll give it some thought and consider using it for my next group.
Nice video.
Edit:
One rule I have used that actually helps a lot is that armor *actually protects you.* What I mean by this is that in addition to the normal way it is used and behaves, it provides damage reduction (that stacks with innate sources of it, like Barbarian class features, but not magical bonuses like Stoneskin). Light gives DR 1/Magic, Medium gives DR 2/Magic, Heavy gives DR 3/Magic. This does not apply to any attacks or effects that would ignore or deny your armor bonus.
I have also used rules that gives shields a chance to actually block an attack (when Defensively Fighting, Combat Expertise, or similar action). The rules for this were a bit more complex than the types described in the video, but still very much in the spirit of how combat rules operate in D&D in general. Bear in mind that this was for 3.5 as well. 4th and 5th don't really interest me.
My house rule: every race get a feat at level 1. variant human and custom lineage are banned.
Does anyone ever play a human?
how about this. this rule + variant human gets changed to +2/+1, one proficiency and one expertise of their choice as their class feature. So this way, you still have people playing the human race.
Sounds like there's not much point in banning Variant Human and Custom Lineage in this scenario. Now they're naturally outperformed by every other race. The main strength of these 2 races is the free feat. They don't really get much else in addition to it. Now everyone can get a free feat PLUS all the other racial bonuses. You should ban Half-Elf and/or Yuan-Ti.
@@BiowareNut I think it's meant to stop people from double-dipping by taking v.human/custom lineage and grabbing two feats at 1st level.
@@NRMRKL Right, makes sense. I guess I just assumed (for no reason lol) that the free feat would not be granted to those races.
One simple and fun house rule that my group uses is to maximize the damage of the additional dice on critical hits. A critical hit with a greatsword does 2d6+12 instead of 4d6. This makes the critical hit meaningful and deadly. It also avoids the frustrating situation of rolling low and doing less damage than a regular hit. Combat feels more exciting this way.
Weird. I have never noticed any issue with Shield. Usually one, maybe two characters in the party have it. It's handy, but it takes up a spell slot and doesn't protect for saving throws.
@@zikuanli8483 Agreed. I have very few house rules, mostly house interpretations, and they are very much tailored for our table. Our wizards don't tend to armor up for instance, because it just feels wrong.
There are so many problems bigger than the ones you talk about.
Don't let Devil's Sight see through Darkness, don't have forced movement trigger damage and effects that are caused by moving, Paladins are limited to use spell slots for which they have a prepared Paladin spell when using divine smite. Most outlier damage builds abuse Smites or splash Warlock.
On combat feats:
-5/+10 is not a good rule for D&D feats, much less as a baseline, as it adds a tremendous amount of variance and a much higher upper bound to potential damage, potentially ruining encounters. The problem isn't the mathematical average damage, it's the large upper limit that can trivialize cinematic fights with lots of luck. It's a problem that someone only looking at average damage will miss. As a DM you don't want the player to action surge and happen to land all these shots, but you also don't want the player to miss all those attacks due to the -5 either. A better bet is to tone down the feat. Look at this another way; if these feats provided a -2/+4 they would still be the best combat feats for damage output in the game. (I'd use -3/+6 as a throw back to the old 18:00 2nd edition bonus but I am dumb that way.)
On Shield:
Shield can't be used unless a hand is free unless you have Warcaster or the class gives you the ability to make your weapon your focus. That's a hefty price for using this spell. Since the rules don't talk about the specifics of "using" a two handed weapon, you can just say if you attacked with a two handed weapon, both hands are occupied until the beginning of your next turn.
If you balance against Shield, characters will use their spell slots fairly quickly. Unless the players get a long rest after every encounter, the slots will go quick.
I love these, they are all great.
It took me a few moments when I first heard rule 3 to decide because I don't want to increase the empower of low level characters (I like the struggle early on to survive with low powered characters). But the -5 hits hardest at those first few levels so it is a good choice that has compromise.
The one thing I am not sure on is how well it would work with a multiclass Fighter/spellcaster.
The one other homebrew rule I am likely to impose is action surge doesn't work for spells. I hate that thematically and power-wise.
My go to tell for a bad house rule or homebrew mechanic is one that requires the reference of a table or adds an additional step to resolving an action in combat. The other obvious you covered in rules looking for a problem to solve; for instance monk issues - if you or your monks aren't having issues, don't add any of the optional rules because you aren't solving a problem.
When making a house rule, identify what the problem is and most importantly, why it's a problem. If you can't answer these, they you're adding a rule complication for its own sake. Secondly, after drafting your rule, determine if it increases the time it takes to resolve actions. If that answer is yes, you probably need to adjust it, or more likely, toss it.
The third one will have consequences, you won't see any 2-handed melee weapons in the hands of your min-maxer players.
I don't understand the point of this homebrew rule.
You should fix the issue with sword and board and 2-weapon fighting than reversing the issue imo.
Totally agree with this. In fact I think this rule creates an even worse problem. At least at the moment there is still reason to use shields, it does add 2 ac after all. But with this home rule, the damage advantage of great weapons is so minimal you'd never use them if optimizing, except maybe a Halberd Mastery build, which would still be decent.
Buffing the shield master feat and feats related to other weapons is probably a better solution. However, that is more complex, which I guess is what Chris is trying to avoid. There are plusses and minuses to everything.
@@jeffx40 I think the complexity is needed though because different fighting styles should be different. Adding -5 +10 to everything makes all fighting styles the same damage wise. Sheilds should be the defensive option, two weapon fighting so be in-between damage and defense, two handed fighting should be the damage option, and range is the range option. Everything shouldn't be made just as good at damage
@@theeye8276 Yeah, I agree with you. Chris is looking for a simple answer to a problem that doesn't have one. Though you can fix it without being too complex imo.
For instance, with the Shield Master feat you can knock an enemy prone woth your bonus action, but not until after you've taken the attack action. Switch it to being able to be used before the attack action and suddenly sword and board will be solid as you'll be attacking with advantage all the time.
Give two weapon fighting some sort of similer buff and you can make them all viable instead just shifting the focus to sword and board and making the other styles pointless. They'd all be viable in a way that feels unique too, instead just all doing the same thing like this rule encourages.
So while I agree with his point of trying to not have too many rules to remember, I personally think he overcompensated and went too simple with his changes leading to other problems.
@@jeffx40 Shouldn't two-handed heavy weapons already have a damage advantage due to their higher damage die/dice? I think the real problem is that without feats the weapon options just aren't well balanced or accurately representing the pros and cons of selecting one over another. It's even made worse by the terrible dual wielding rules and the disconnect between weapon design and fighting styles (except for maybe archery).
In my opinion, the weapons system needs a fix that doesn't rely on feats. I'm not sure what to do about two weapon fighting but I think the fix for two-handed weapons is a bigger base average damage advantage through more dice rather than bigger dice for fighting two-handed.
There's a reason why the Great Weapon Fighting style works better for Greatsword and Maul than the others and that is that they get more dice to reroll. I say change all the versatile weapons to 2d4 and give them an extra 1d4 when used two-handed. Similarly, amp up the damage dice of all weapons that must be used two-handed - 3d4 to weapons with reach and 4d4 to weapons without reach.
Once the gap between the base average damages of different weapon options has been sufficiently widened, I don't see a reason why anyone couldn't "swing wildly" a melee weapon, whether you use the -5/+10 rule or the -prof/+double prof version many posted in other comments.
this problem is inherent to the mechanical problem at the core of GWM that it adds a straight bonus of 10 to damage. we can get a similar but improved result by allowing GWM to triple weapon damage dice on a hit, so 1d8+10 (average result 14.5) becomes 3d8 (average result 13.5) whereas 2d6+10 (Average result 17) becomes 6d6 (average result 21). those numbers look less disparate when you factor in ability score bonuses, plus the fighting style bonuses, so a S+B longsword user with dueling and 18 str averages 19.5 with an AC of 20, while a greatsword user with defense and 18 str averages 25 with an AC of 19. So a 27 percent increase in average damage in exchange for 1 AC. whereas with the straight +10 it's a pitiful 1.5 more damage per hit in exchange for 1 AC, which is not an exchange anyone sensible would make. This fix also helps to provide a better reason to use greatswords/axes as opposed to twohanded polearms, which only use a d10 for damage (with the fix, 3d10+4 averages to 20.5, slightly better than the S+B damage but significantly less than the greatsword)
I especially like the GWM/Sharpshooter fix, although I would modify it slightly as follows: When you use the attack action to make an attack using a weapon or unarmed strike, you may choose to take a penalty equal to you proficiency bonus to that attack roll. If that attack hits, you add twice your proficiency bonus to the damage roll.
This way it scales more with level and is less swingly at low to mid level.
Edit: The only issue might be that its almost always worth using still (haven't done the math yet).
Could not disagree more with the game being better without the shield spell, reaction spells are fun and allow suspense of if things will be a success or not. I have home brewed that the spell must be used when made the target of an attack. So the player has to be quick on their feet before I give the total. Adds a layer of u players paying attention and weakens the spell a tad.
Changing shield so it must be used before the attack roll is made certainly would be an interesting house rule to try. In my playtest, I found getting rid of it to be a good thing.
best fix for shield is that it sets ac vs melee to 17 and 19 against missles, just as it was written in the ancient texts.
The shield spell being a problem is a 5e thing only.
It seems the main issue Treantmonk has is the breaking down of bounded accuracy, which is indeed an issue. But no need for any of these house rules to fix it. I have one simple, elegant solution: Auto hit on 18, 19, 20. An 18 is a grazing hit, inflicting half dmg, round up (unless the attack would have hit normally on an 18, in which case it is a normal hit). A 19 is a normal hit, and a 20 is a crit.
Nice, simple, and elegant, Fixes high ACs in one go. Now, no matter how well armoured, multiple minions can hit a highly armoured opponent 3 times out of 20 regardless of AC, 15% chance instead of 5% chance. No more will hordes of low level minions be a trivial encounter.
It brings diminishing returns trying to maximise AC, meaning more varied builds with altrernate forms of damage mitigation or reduction such as uncanny dodge.
Treantmonk: these house rules make game better
Me: I believe you, tell me already
Treantmonk: rule 1, remove Shield spell
Me, Bladesinger wizard player: *TRIGGERED*
If #2 is implemented, I'd like to see it come along with mage armor being automatically known by wizards and sorcerers. This is in the same vein as the relatively common house rule that turns Eldritch Blast into a class feature. It's such an important option that you really wouldn't want it to come at the expense of another spell known, especially on a sorcerer who knows so few spells to begin with.
And now Draconic Sorcerer is good again
@@netenes1 add a "domain" spell list and it should become competitive